The Iowa Supreme Court held that the State Auditor of Iowa may be represented by independent counsel rather than the Attorney General's office in an ongoing legal dispute involving subpoenaed city records, citing a conflict of interest.
The court issued its order Dec. 5 in *City of Davenport v. Office of Auditor of State of Iowa*, resolving a motion filed by the Auditor requesting permission to use his own general counsel instead of the Attorney General's representation. The case stems from an appeal of a Scott County District Court decision regarding the Auditor's subpoena of Davenport city records.
Justice Mansfield delivered the court's order, joined by Chief Justice Christensen and Justices Oxley and McDermott. Justice McDonald filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice May. Justice Waterman did not participate in the decision.
The dispute originated when the State Auditor issued a subpoena for city records as part of an authorized audit or examination. Under Iowa Code chapter 11, the Auditor has broad authority to conduct audits of state and local governments and has the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths in connection with such audits.
Davenport challenged the subpoena in Scott County District Court, with Judge Jeffrey D. Bert presiding. When the city appealed the district court's decision to the Iowa Supreme Court, the Auditor filed a motion objecting to the Attorney General's representation of his office and requesting permission to use his own general counsel instead.
Both the State Auditor and Attorney General are constitutional officers under the Iowa Constitution. The Auditor is described in Article IV, Section 22, while the Attorney General is identified in Article V, Section 12. Both officers are elected by Iowa voters and have duties as provided by state law.
The Attorney General's office typically represents state agencies and officials in legal proceedings. However, conflicts of interest can arise when the interests of different state entities diverge, requiring independent representation to ensure proper advocacy for each party.
The court's brief order states: "Because of the Attorney General's conflict of interest, the Auditor of State may be represented by his general counsel." The opinion does not elaborate on the specific nature of the conflict, but the ruling suggests the Attorney General's office had competing interests that prevented effective representation of the Auditor.
Representing Davenport in the case were Richard A. Davidson and Brett R. Marshall of Lane & Waterman LLP. The State Auditor was represented by John McCormally, who serves as General Counsel to the Iowa Auditor of State and argued on behalf of the office.
The Attorney General's office was represented by Attorney General Brenna Bird and several members of her staff, including Solicitor General Eric H. Wessan, who argued the case, Deputy Solicitor General Patrick C. Valencia, and Assistant Solicitor General William C. Admussen, who withdrew from the case.
The case highlights the complex relationships between different state constitutional officers and their respective legal authorities. When state entities have conflicting interests in litigation, courts must ensure each party receives adequate legal representation that fully advocates for their position.
The Auditor's authority to subpoena records is an essential tool for conducting thorough audits of government operations. Local governments sometimes resist such subpoenas, arguing they exceed the Auditor's authority or impose undue burdens. These disputes often require judicial resolution to balance the Auditor's oversight responsibilities with local government autonomy.
The Iowa Supreme Court's decision allows the State Auditor to proceed with independent counsel, ensuring the office can fully advocate for its position in the underlying records dispute with Davenport. This arrangement protects the integrity of the audit process while acknowledging the potential conflicts that can arise when multiple state entities are involved in the same litigation.
The ruling may establish precedent for future cases where conflicts arise between Iowa constitutional officers. By recognizing the legitimacy of such conflicts and allowing independent representation, the court ensures that each state entity can pursue its statutory responsibilities without compromise.
The case will now proceed with the Auditor represented by independent counsel rather than the Attorney General's office. The underlying dispute over the subpoenaed Davenport records remains to be resolved, but the representation issue has been settled in favor of allowing the Auditor's office to use its own general counsel.