The Madison County Board of Supervisors and Auditor Michele Brant were back in district court this week, this time over a dispute involving payment of the Board’s outside legal counsel.

The underlying lawsuit stems from the Board’s effort to compel payment of invoices submitted by its outside legal counsel, Belin McCormick. According to the Board, Iowa law authorizes a board of supervisors to retain outside legal counsel by majority vote, and the Board formally retained Belin McCormick in August 2025. The Board alleges Auditor Michele Brant declined to pay invoices totaling $43,379 without additional information describing the legal services performed. The Board argues that providing those details would violate attorney-client privilege and has asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring payment.

Although the lawsuit concerns payment of those legal bills, that issue was not argued during this hearing. Instead, the court first addressed a threshold question: whether County Attorney Stephen Swanson can represent the Auditor in the lawsuit while also serving as attorney for the Board of Supervisors in his official capacity.

Attorney Michael Boal, representing the Board, argued that Swanson has a non-waivable conflict because he represents both the Board of Supervisors and the Auditor in their official capacities. Boal also pointed to the court’s recent ruling in a related case involving similar conflict-of-interest questions.

One of the hearing’s most notable exchanges came when Judge Patrick Greenwood questioned Swanson about the practical effect of representing both parties. The judge asked whether Swanson would withhold information from the Board if he learned something from the Auditor that would benefit the county. After rephrasing the question, the judge asked, “You’re saying you would not inform your client, the county, of information that’s helpful to the county?” Swanson replied, “Correct,” adding that he believed case law supported that position.

Swanson argued that no concurrent conflict exists in this case and defended his continued representation of the Auditor. He also requested permission to submit additional briefing addressing the issue.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Greenwood established a schedule for additional briefs from both parties before issuing a written ruling. The court must first determine whether Swanson may continue representing the Auditor before it can consider the Auditor’s motion to dismiss and, if necessary, the merits of the Board’s petition seeking payment of the Belin McCormick invoices.

Legal Filings:

June 19, 2026: Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Request for Injunctive Relief

June 19, 2026: Motion for Leave to File under Seal