Washington Evening Journal
111 North Marion Avenue
Washington, IA 52353
319-653-2191
State suspends Washington-based attorney’s license
Justices use case to highlight severe shortage of juvenile public defenders
Kalen McCain
Dec. 26, 2024 10:59 am, Updated: Dec. 31, 2024 8:25 am
Southeast Iowa Union offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
DES MOINES — The Iowa Supreme Court has suspended a Washington attorney’s license for 30 days after oversight groups said she repeatedly failed to meet deadlines that jeopardized her clients’ positions in cases.
The move came after the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint against Patricia Lipski, saying she violated the state’s rules of professional conduct while working with a client given the pseudonym “Alicia.”
“This attorney disciplinary matter presents a failure in our attempts at progressive discipline to prevent a lawyer from continuing to miss filing deadlines in appeals,” wrote Justice Matthew McDermott in the court’s majority opinion on the matter.
Court records say Lipski — an attorney since 2001 — failed to meet signature and filing deadlines when Alicia asked to appeal the outcome of a termination-of-parental-rights case. And when those deadlines were missed, the state supreme court said in its disciplinary ruling that Lipski “did not communicate with Alicia about the fact her appeal documents had been filed late, the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal, or our order requiring an explanation and threatening dismissal.”
The appeal was eventually denied over Lipski’s failure to file paperwork on time, at which point court records said the attorney “went dark,” and neglected to inform Alicia of the outcome for over a month despite repeated messages from the client asking about the case. When Lipski did share news of the denial, she didn’t mention the role of missed deadlines in the outcome, or reply to “several follow-up inquiries” about the appeal.
In its disciplinary decision, justices noted Lipski had a history of missed deadlines ending in dismissed cases, citing “private admonitions” in 2018 and 2020 as well as a public reprimand in 2023, all of them stemming from untimely appeal filings which “resulted in the dismissal of appeals for several of her clients,” all in termination-of-parental-rights cases.
The court found Lipski broke four rules of professional conduct, including those governing communication, diligence, misrepresentations to clients, and a duty to expedite litigation.
Lipski declined to comment on the suspension.
The 30-day suspension was, according to justices, an attempt to balance repercussions with the local need for her services as a juvenile-focused public defender.
Area judges testified during the proceedings, where they praised Lipski’s willingness to take on “challenging clients” with “the experience and the competence” needed to give them a fair shake. One candidly stated, “I need Ms. Lipski,” stressing the public defender’s role in the district’s juvenile justice system.
Those on the court said Lipski’s “considerable service to an underserved population” was a noteworthy mitigating factor in its sanctions. They noted that her willingness to take on juvenile public defense cases was critical to meet demand in the five counties she contracts in, conceding that “any suspension of her license risks adversely affecting the operation of the juvenile court system.”
Justice Dana Oxley wrote a concurring opinion on the disciplinary matter, in an effort to point out the importance of Lipski’s public defense contracting.
“I write separately to point out that one of the reasons Lipski missed the appellate deadlines is the lack of administrative assistance, and one of the reasons she lacked administrative assistance was the lack of finances,” Oxley said. “One of the reasons she lacked finances was the fact that Lipski works almost exclusively as a contract attorney with the public defender’s office taking court-appointed juvenile cases.”
Oxley later continued, “None of this excuses Lipski’s conduct in this case or the ramifications to her client, who was denied a merits review of the order terminating her parental rights. But this case does highlight the indigent defense crisis caused by the low pay for contract attorneys in Iowa who can’t even afford the help of an administrative assistant as they work to provide this invaluable service in our rural counties.”
Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com