Opinion ID: 1878179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of prior suspension.

Text: In recommending suspension, the commission considered evidence of Bromwell's prior suspension to practice law under Iowa Supreme Court Rule 118.7, which provides: The grievance commission and this court shall consider [evidence of an attorney's prior suspension to practice law] ... in determining the attorney's fitness ... to practice law.... Bromwell challenges this rule because it does not provide him the same protections afforded criminal defendants under the Iowa Rules of Evidence. See Iowa R.Evid. 404(a)(1), (b), 405(a), (b), 609(b). The short answer to his challenge is that a disciplinary proceeding is not criminal, but is special, civil in nature, and has been described as ... an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Kraschel, 260 Iowa 187, 193, 148 N.W.2d 621, 625 (1967) (citations omitted); see Behnke, 276 N.W.2d at 841; see also Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Hurd, 375 N.W.2d 239, 246 (Iowa 1985). The evidentiary restrictions urged by Bromwell might frustrate the goals of the disciplinary inquiry: to determine a lawyer's fitness to practice law and appropriate disciplinary action. We hold that rule 118.3 is valid, and that the commission did not err in considering Bromwell's prior suspension to practice law.