Opinion ID: 1852066
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings belong, not merely the particular case then occupying the court's attention. Bailey v. Batchelder, 576 N.W.2d 334, 337 (Iowa 1998). Schreiber claims this action falls within the general class of cases that are subject to the judicial review procedures of chapter 17A. We turn, then, to the provisions of that statute. Section 17A.19(1) permits a petition for judicial review to be filed by a person aggrieved or adversely affected by any final agency action. Iowa Code § 17A.19(1) (emphasis added). An agency under chapter 17A includes each board, commission, department, officer or other administrative office or unit of the state. Iowa Code § 17A.2(1). Importantly, this term does not include the judicial branch or any of its components. Id. Based on these statutory provisions, it appears that the determinative issue here is whether Bastemeyer is an officer of the judicial branch or any of its components. [1] The answer to that question turns on whether the ethics board of which he is the administrator is a component of the judicial branch. We think it is. It cannot be disputed that the Iowa Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch. See id. § 602.1102(1) (stating that the judicial branch consists of several parts, including the supreme court). One of the responsibilities of the court is to admit persons to the practice of law in the courts of this state. See id. § 602.10101. This power carries with it the obligation to supervise the conduct of attorneys, including the imposition of discipline when appropriate. See id. §§ 602.1206, .10121; accord Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Bromwell, 221 N.W.2d 777, 780 (Iowa 1974). In fulfilling its supervisory duties, the supreme court has created the Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct to process complaints made against attorneys. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.2(1). Board members are appointed commissioners of the supreme court. Id. The board is required to investigate complaints filed with it and either dismiss the complaint made, or admonish or reprimand the attorney, or file and prosecute the complaint before the grievance commission. Id. Complaints prosecuted before the grievance commission are ultimately subjected to a hearing, and the commission may then dismiss the complaint, issue a private admonition, or recommend to the supreme court that the attorney be subjected to professional discipline, including suspension or revocation of the attorney's license. Iowa Ct. Rs. 35.7, .9. We think the ethics board clearly qualifies as a component of the judicial branch. Since the legislature did not define this term, we give this word its ordinary meaning. Miller v. Westfield Ins. Co., 606 N.W.2d 301, 305 (Iowa 2000). The dictionary defines the word component as a constituent part. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 466 (unabr. ed.1993). Here, where the ethics administrator and the board he serves were established by the supreme court and assist the court in carrying out its mandate to supervise the practice of law in Iowa, there can be no doubt that both the administrator and the board are part of the judicial branch. As noted above, components of the judicial branch are not agencies within chapter 17A and, therefore, are not subject to the judicial review provisions of that statute. Accordingly, because the named defendant in this action is a component of the judicial branch, this proceeding cannot be maintained based on the authority of chapter 17A. We turn, then, to a consideration of whether there is any viable claim against the ethics administrator apart from the procedures for judicial review.