Law schools have historically excelled at teaching the law. By the time students graduate and sit for the bar exam, they often know more black-letter law—contracts, torts, constitutional law—than they ever will again. Yet, knowing the law is not the same as knowing how to practice it. Law schools rarely teach the judgment, practical skills, and professional instincts essential to “lawyering” in the real world. Those lessons are acquired through experience and, most effectively, through mentorship.

Finding a good mentor can mark the difference between becoming a competent lawyer and a truly exceptional one. A mentor helps cultivate sound judgment, professionalism, and the practical wisdom necessary to serve clients effectively. Importantly, the value of mentorship is not limited to those just entering practice. For senior members of the bar, mentoring offers professional fulfillment while reinforcing the high standards that have long distinguished Idaho’s legal community. At its best, mentoring is not about recounting war stories or past victories, but about communicating core values, modeling integrity, and shaping the next generation of attorneys.

As a young lawyer, I recall one such lesson that has guided my career. One of my early mentors offered the simple but profound reminder: “Remember, lawyers can do many things, but they cannot change the facts.” This truth is critical to effective and ethical practice. Practicing with this admonition in mind helps attorneys navigate the mandates of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct (“IRPC”) while staying faithful to the fiduciary nature of the attorney–client relationship.

Facts as the Immutable Anchors to Ethical Advocacy

No matter how artful our advocacy is, the facts at issue in any controversy are immutable. There is no room in ethical practice for “alternative facts.” Rule 3.3 of the IRPC forbids lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal (IRPC 3.3(a)(1), (a)(3)), and Rule 4.1 prohibits false statements to third parties (IRPC 4.1(a)). These core obligations reinforce the early lesson that acknowledging the facts of a case is fundamental to professional integrity. A client untethered to the truth, paired with an attorney willing to overlook false testimony, creates a dangerous scenario for any litigated conflict. Unfortunately, in an age of disinformation and “alterative facts”, these challenges seem increasingly common.

Beyond Advocacy: The Lawyer as Fiduciary and Counselor

Our duties to clients extend far beyond courtroom zeal. The IRPC recognize that attorneys are not merely advocates but fiduciaries, charged with exercising independent professional judgment and rendering candid advice.[i] This includes counseling clients to resolve disputes when the facts or law favor settlement over litigation. The obligation of zealous representation cannot be elevated above our fiduciary duty to advise clients responsibly.

Too often, clients insist they would “rather pay their lawyer” than settle with the other side. Fidelity to our fiduciary role requires us to counsel against such short-sighted positions. True advocacy sometimes means urging compromise, even when clients are resistant, because it serves their best interests.

The Perils of “Win-At-All-Costs” Advocacy

Increasingly, some practitioners appear tempted by a “win-at-all-costs” mentality, cloaking it in the rhetoric of zealous representation. Yet Idaho law makes clear that zeal divorced from candor, loyalty, and judgment is not advocacy but a breach of fiduciary duty. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Parkinson v. Bevis, 165 Idaho 599, 448 P.3d 1027 (2019), attorneys are fiduciaries first and foremost, and when zeal eclipses judgment, fiduciary duties are compromised.  In recent cases, the Idaho Supreme Court has admonished attorneys for their lack of candor in appellate practice in which counsel misrepresented facts and legal issues argued in the court below on summary judgment versus a motion to reconsider summary judgment. An attorney’s willingness to shade the truth for perceived tactical advantage may result in professional discipline and illustrates that “winning” by any means necessary is, in truth, losing one’s professional compass.

Moreover, pushing litigation forward despite adverse facts, weak legal footing, escalating fees, or heightened client risk is not zealous advocacy, it is a breach of fiduciary duty. Such conduct jeopardizes the duty of loyalty, implicates IRPC 1.5(a), and violates the Preamble’s command that representation be both zealous and principled.  True advocacy does not mean fighting every battle; it means acting in the client’s best interest. Where settlement offers certainty, reduces cost, and minimizes risk, advising compromise is not weakness but fidelity to one’s fiduciary role. Failure to temper zeal with judgment risks transforming advocacy into ethical breach.

The Idaho State Bar Mentor Program

Mentorship remains central to cultivating these professional values. The Idaho State Bar maintains a formal Mentor Program, accessible through the ISB website.[ii] The program pairs experienced attorneys with newer lawyers seeking guidance. Senior attorneys may submit an application identifying their background and areas of interest, and newer attorneys may contact the Bar—currently through Teresa Baker at tbaker@isb.idaho.gov—to be matched with a mentor.

The program’s success, however, depends upon participation. To preserve the high standards that define our profession in Idaho, we need more experienced lawyers willing to guide the next generation. For senior members of the bar, mentoring is not only an opportunity to give back but also a way to ensure that professionalism, integrity, and ethical advocacy remain hallmarks of our practice.

F.J. Hahn is currently a commissioner serving the 6^th and 7^th districts of the Idaho State Bar. He attended the University of Idaho College of Law and works in Idaho Falls.

[i] IRPC Rule 2.1 states “In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice.  In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.”

[ii]   https://isb.idaho.gov/member-services/programs-resources/mentor-program/.