Court Opinion

ID: 9859823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 22:44:31.403716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:07:59.609420
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(concurring specially).
The opinion of the court, although mentioning the language of Iowa Code section 252B.7(4) and 441 Iowa Administrative *297Code 95.15(1), which appear to insulate the defendant Flores from liability, does not rely on this statute or that rule in deciding the case. Instead, the court opines that the situation before us is more analogous to a prosecutor’s immunity in bringing criminal prosecutions than it is to the situation of court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who may be liable for malpractice. I do not share that view. I believe that the situation presented in the present case is in no way analogous to the area of prosecuto-rial immunity and, if comparisons are to be drawn, it is in fact more similar to the situation of court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants. Absent a statute there should be no immunity.
I concur in the result that the court reaches, however, because I believe that it is the purpose of section 252B.7(4) and the administrative rule that implements that statute to insulate assistant county attorneys from malpractice liability.