On Friday, December 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of Iowa suspended the law license of attorney Patricia Jean Lipski for thirty days due to multiple violations of professional conduct rules. The decision followed a review of a report from the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission, which had recommended the suspension based on Lipski’s failure to meet critical filing deadlines while representing a client in a termination-of-parental-rights case.
The case is entitled “Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Patricia Jean Lipski,” with case no. 24–1124.
The background of the case dates back to January 30, 2023, when the juvenile court ordered the termination of parental rights for a client referred to as “Alicia.” Lipski was appointed to represent Alicia. The court mandated that a notice of appeal must be filed within fifteen days of the termination order, followed by a petition for relief to be submitted within thirty days.
Despite initial communications between Lipski and Alicia, including attempts to arrange a meeting for Alicia to sign the necessary documents, Lipski failed to secure the signed notice by the February 14 deadline. On that date, she submitted a notice that was not compliant with court requirements, lacking Alicia’s actual signature. The court subsequently ordered Lipski to file an amended notice signed by Alicia within seven days.
Although Lipski obtained Alicia’s signature by February 24, she did not file the amended notice until February 26, two days late. Furthermore, Lipski filed the petition on appeal on March 6, which was also beyond the deadline of March 1 set by the court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction after Alicia’s case was jeopardized by Lipski’s repeated failures to communicate about the status of the appeal and the implications of her late filings.
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board took action against Lipski, citing her neglect in handling the appeal and her lack of communication with her client, who had repeatedly inquired about the status of her case. The Grievance Commission held a contested hearing, during which evidence was presented regarding Lipski’s past disciplinary history, including two private admonitions and a public reprimand for similar conduct.
Lipski testified during the hearing, admitting to difficulties in managing her schedule and acknowledging the emotional toll of her work. However, she failed to disclose the reasons for the dismissal of Alicia’s appeal, which contributed to a lack of trust and communication between her and her client.
In its findings, the Grievance Commission determined that Lipski’s actions constituted violations of several rules of professional conduct, including diligence, communication, expediting litigation, and misrepresentation. The commission recommended a suspension of fourteen days, but the Attorney Disciplinary Board sought a thirty-day suspension. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Board’s recommendation.
The court emphasized that while Lipski has demonstrated competence in trial-level work, her repeated neglect in appellate matters warranted a suspension to protect the public and deter similar behavior among other attorneys. The court also took into account mitigating factors, such as Lipski’s service to underserved populations and her credibility during the hearing.
The decision to suspend Lipski’s license will take effect ten days from the ruling, applying to all aspects of her legal practice.
According to avvo.com, Ms. Lipski is an attorney in Washington, Iowa. She acquired her law license in Iowa in 2001.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
