The rules for discipline of Idaho lawyers are established by the Idaho Supreme Court, through Section V of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules. IBCR 521 provides for two types of disciplinary sanctions: private discipline (for less serious violations) and public discipline (for more serious violations). Only public discipline sanctions are posted.
Recent Public Discipline Notices
On March 22, 2017, the Professional Conduct Board of the Idaho State Bar entered an Order issuing a Public Reprimand to Meridian attorney Paul R. Winward, based on professional misconduct. Consistent with the terms of that Order, Mr. Winward also voluntarily resigned his Idaho State Bar license.
The Professional Conduct Board’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Winward admitted that his conduct violated Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 [Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services] and 7.3(a) [Solicitation of Clients].
This disciplinary case related to Mr. Winward’s communications with sales representatives of a Boise homebuilder and his communications with two homeowners who had purchased homes from that homebuilder. Mr. Winward falsely indicated to the sales representatives that he was interested in buying a home from the homebuilder. He also falsely indicated to homeowners that he represented another homeowner regarding the homebuilder’s allegedly defective foundations. Although not Respondent’s intent, the homeowners understood from their communications with Respondent that their foundations may be defective and that Respondent was offering to provide legal services to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of homeowners regarding the allegedly defective foundations. Bar Counsel considered as mitigation the fact that Mr. Winward sought the advice of counsel regarding his communications with the homeowners.
The public reprimand does not limit Mr. Winward’s eligibility to practice law. However, as part of the stipulated resolution of the disciplinary case, Mr. Winward agreed to voluntarily resign his Idaho State Bar license pursuant to Idaho Bar Commission Rule 305(e), as he had initially prepared to do prior to the filing of the formal charge case to pursue other business interests. Respondent further agreed that he may not apply for readmission to the Idaho State Bar sooner than October 1, 2017. Under Section II of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules, Mr. Winward would be required to take and successfully pass the Idaho bar examination for admission.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On March 16, 2017, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Nampa attorney, Matthew B. Hanson, from the practice of law for six (6) months, effective April 15, 2017. The Disciplinary Order also imposed a twelve (12) month period of withheld suspension and provided that upon reinstatement, Mr. Hanson shall serve a two (2) year disciplinary probation.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Hanson violated I.R.P.C. 1.7(a) of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to represent a client if there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s personal interests. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding and related to the following circumstances.
In November 2015, Mr. Hanson communicated with an individual about the purchase of “blues.” He did not purchase the “blues” or any other controlled substances from that person at that time. On December 1, 2015, that person retained Mr. Hanson as counsel in a criminal probation termination case. In December 2015, Mr. Hanson communicated with his client about “blues” and purchased the “blues” from his client, which affected or could have affected his client’s pending probation termination case. In January 2016, Mr. Hanson’s client retained new counsel.
The Disciplinary Order provided that twelve (12) months of Mr. Hanson’s eighteen (18) month suspension is withheld subject to the terms of his two (2) year probation upon reinstatement, with terms include the following: avoidance of any alcohol or drug-related criminal acts or traffic violations; a program of random urinalysis, with provision that if Mr. Hanson tests positive for any tested substances or misses a random urinalysis test without prior approval, the entire withheld suspension shall be immediately imposed; and if Mr. Hanson admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during his period of probation, the twelve (12) month withheld suspension shall be imposed.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On February 28, 2017, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order accepting the resignation in lieu of disciplinary proceedings of Boise attorney Dennis J. Sallaz, effective March 1, 2017. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to the following conduct.
While serving as counsel for a client, Mr. Sallaz drafted and executed a purchase agreement pursuant to which the client purchased Mr. Sallaz’s interests in an Idaho limited liability company. That company purportedly held certain real estate, title to which was in dispute at the time Mr. Sallaz and his client executed the purchase agreement. Mr. Sallaz did not adequately explain his conflict of interest in the transaction to his client, obtain his client’s written informed consent to the conflict of interest, or advise his client in writing of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction. Mr. Sallaz admitted that with respect to that business transaction, his conduct violated I.R.P.C. 1.7(a)(2) [Conflict of interest based on the lawyer’s personal interests] and I.R.P.C. 1.8(a) [Conflict of interest in business transaction with client]. Additionally, Mr. Sallaz admitted that he placed personal funds in his trust account, which simultaneously held clients’ funds, in violation of I.R.P.C. 1.15(a) [Failure to hold property of clients or third parties separate from lawyer’s own property].
The Idaho Supreme Court accepted Mr. Sallaz’s resignation in lieu of disciplinary proceedings effective March 1, 2017. By the terms of the Order, Mr. Sallaz may not make application for admission to the Idaho State Bar sooner than five (5) years from the date of his resignation. If he does make such application for admission, he will be required to comply with all bar admission requirements in Section II of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules and will have the burden of overcoming the rebuttable presumption of the unfitness to practice law.
By the terms of the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order, Mr. Sallaz’s name was stricken from the records of the Idaho Supreme Court and his right to practice law before the courts in Idaho was terminated on March 1, 2017.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On February 16, 2017, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Pocatello attorney, Rusty B. Hansen, from the practice of law for a period of 3 years and 9 months, with 21 months of that suspension withheld. The Disciplinary Order also provided that if reinstated following his suspension, Mr. Hansen will be placed on probation for a period of three years. Mr. Hansen’s two-year suspension from practicing law in Idaho will be from August 25, 2016, when he closed his law office in anticipation of being suspended, through August 25, 2018.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Hansen violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Failure to Abide by Client’s Decisions Concerning the Objectives of Representation]; I.R.P.C. 1.3 [Diligence]; I.R.P.C. 1.4 [Communication]; and I.R.P.C. 3.4(c) [Knowingly Disobeying an Obligation under the Rules of a Tribunal]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar discipline case in which Mr. Hansen admitted that he violated those Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mr. Hansen’s conduct related to his representation of a client charged with aggravated DUI. The State served discovery responses identifying the State’s expert witnesses, including lab personnel. Mr. Hansen sought additional information from an out-of-state laboratory and following hearing, the Court determined that the information sought was beyond the State’s obligation to produce in discovery, but that Mr. Hansen’s client could order the information, pay for it and it would be subject to reimbursement if she prevailed at trial.
Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor and the laboratory provided the instructions and information necessary to order the laboratory information to Mr. Hansen. However, Mr. Hansen failed to timely request that information. When Mr. Hansen disclosed defendant’s expert witnesses, he did not provide the substance of the experts’ testimony as requested by the discovery. At a pre-trial hearing two weeks before trial, Mr. Hansen advised the Court that a defense expert witness would not be available to testify. The expert witness had advised Mr. Hansen 17 days earlier that he declined to appear. Mr. Hansen advised the Court that he had a potential substitute expert witness; however, that expert witness had not yet been retained and had not provided a report related to his potential testimony. The Court excluded the defense expert witnesses because Mr. Hansen had no adequate reason or just cause to excuse his failure to comply with the criminal rule governing discovery and the disclosure of expert witnesses. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hansen’s client pled guilty to aggravated DUI pursuant to a plea agreement.
The Disciplinary Order provided that 15 months of the suspension will be imposed and served by Mr. Hansen, since Mr. Hansen’s conduct occurred during the period of a three-year disciplinary probation that had terminated in August 2015. The Disciplinary Order provided Mr. Hansen will serve an additional 9 months of suspension. Following any reinstatement, Mr. Hansen will serve a three-year probation upon the conditions of probation specified in the Order. Those conditions include that Mr. Hansen will serve the 21-month withheld suspension if he admits or is found to violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during the period of probation; Mr. Hansen must remain under his physician’s care; Mr. Hansen must, at his own expense, enroll in a program of random urinalysis testing; practice under a supervising attorney; and provide monthly reports to Bar Counsel attesting that he is representing his clients consistent with his responsibilities under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On February 6, 2017, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney Philip M. Kleinsmith until he is either readmitted or reinstated to practice law in Colorado. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a reciprocal disciplinary hearing conducted by the Professional Conduct Board.
Mr. Kleinsmith was admitted to practice law in Colorado and Idaho. On June 10, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court entered an Order of Suspension suspending Mr. Kleinsmith from practicing law in Colorado, pending conclusion of the Colorado disciplinary case.
The disciplinary cases relate to Mr. Kleinsmith’s representation of a client in 74 foreclosure actions in Idaho and Montana between 2012 and 2014. Mr. Kleinsmith billed his client a fixed amount of attorney’s fees and an amount for title costs for title services relating to those foreclosures. Despite collecting the title costs for title services from his client, Mr. Kelinsmith did not reimburse the title company which provided the title services. The title company obtained judgment in Montana against Mr. Kleinsmith in the amount of $55,782, reflecting those unpaid and collected title service costs. In the underlying Colorado disciplinary case, Colorado was granted summary judgment on two claims of its Complaint on Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15A(b) and 8.4(c). Mr. Kleinsmith’s motion seeking relief from that is pending in Colorado. Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15A(b) is equivalent to I.R.P.C 1.15(d) [Safekeeping Property] and Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) is equivalent of I.R.P.C. 8.4(c) [Misconduct]. The Idaho Supreme Court ordered that Mr. Kleinsmith be suspended from practicing law in Idaho until he is either readmitted or reinstated to practice law in Colorado, at which time he may request reinstatement in Idaho.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, ID 83701, 208-334-4500.
On January 10, 2017, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney Tyler J. Larsen for six (6) months. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar reciprocal disciplinary proceeding.
Mr. Larson was admitted to practice law in Utah and Idaho. On November 4, 2016, the Utah district court entered an Order of Suspension suspending Mr. Larsen from practicing law in Utah for six (6) months. The district court found that Mr. Larsen violated Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d), which corresponds to Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(d).
The Utah disciplinary case related to Mr. Larsen’s prosecution of a robbery case and his failure to make a timely disclosure of exculpatory evidence. About ten days before trial, Mr. Larsen and a police officer met with two witnesses to discuss the upcoming trial. At the end of both meetings, Mr. Larsen showed the witnesses a single photograph of the defendant and asked the witnesses if they would be able to identify him as a robber at trial. The witnesses indicated that they would be able to do so. The Utah Supreme Court found that Mr. Larsen’s admission at trial that he had shown only the defendant’s photograph was not a timely disclosure and that those circumstance should have been disclosed to the defense prior to trial.
The Idaho Supreme Court ordered that Mr. Larsen’s six (6) month suspension in Idaho would be retroactive to November 4, 2016 and will last until May 4, 2017.
On November 29th, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney Chris A. Montgomery for six (6) months. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar reciprocal disciplinary proceeding.
Mr. Montgomery was admitted to practice law in Washington and Idaho. On August 3, 2016, the Supreme Court of Washington entered an Order approving a six (6) month suspension of Mr. Montgomery effective August 10, 2016. Washington held a disciplinary hearing regarding whether Mr. Montgomery violated the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC). Mr. Montgomery was found to have committed two violations of RPC 4.2, and one violation of RPC 1.7, 1.8(f), 1.9(c) and 8.4(d). Those Washington rules correspond to the same Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Washington disciplinary case related to the sale of property. Mr. Montgomery’s client was a family, (“Buyers”). Before retaining Mr. Montgomery, the Buyers had purchased property from a person with diminished capacity, (“Seller”). The sale did not include interest or security and was for less than the assessed value of the property. The Seller’s family filed a complaint asserting that the terms of the sale were unfair and Buyers benefited from the Seller’s diminished capacity. The Buyers hired Mr. Montgomery to represent them in the lawsuit. During his representation of the Buyers, Mr. Montgomery met with the Seller, inquired about whether he had diminished capacity and Mr. Montgomery decided on his own that he did not. When the Seller advised Mr. Montgomery he wanted to go forward with the sale, Mr. Montgomery prepared a promissory note, deed of trust, request for re-conveyance, Third Party Escrow Collection Agreement and Instructions, documents to secure the sale and a document revoking the power of attorney Seller had provided to his brother. Seller signed those documents.
After Mr. Montgomery contacted the Seller’s brother, the brother filed a petition for guardianship and to have a guardian ad litem appointed for Seller. The Seller’s nephew filed a Vulnerable Adult Protection Action (VAP) against the Buyers. Mr. Montgomery continued to represent the Buyers in the VAP lawsuit. The VAP lawsuit was dismissed after hearing and the judge found that the Buyers had not financially exploited the Seller.
The Washington disciplinary proceeding determined that Mr. Montgomery contacted a represented party during the pendency of the lawsuit and provided legal services to Buyers and Seller, resulting in multiple conflicts of interest.
The Idaho Supreme Court ordered that Mr. Montgomery’s suspension in Idaho would be retroactive to August 10, 2016 and will last until February 10, 2017, and that as a condition of reinstatement to practice law in Idaho, he must successfully comply with the Washington reinstatement requirements; completion of 6.00 CLE credits in the area of ethics specifically dealing with conflict of interest and payment of any costs and expenses assessed in the Washington disciplinary proceeding.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On November 21, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Meridian attorney Steven Fisher for thirty (30) days. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar reciprocal disciplinary proceeding.
Mr. Fisher was admitted to practice law in Oregon and Idaho. On August 29, 2016, the Supreme Court of Oregon entered an Order approving a thirty (30) day suspension of Mr. Fisher, effective October 15, 2016. In the Oregon disciplinary case, Mr. Fisher stipulated to violations of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.5(a), 1.7(a)(2) and 1.8(h)(2). Those Oregon rules correspond to the same Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct. The Oregon Order also provided that Mr. Fisher pay restitution to his former client in the amount of $5,553 before he is reinstated to practice law in Oregon.
The Oregon disciplinary case related to Mr. Fisher’s representation of a client who suffered damage to his land. After mediation, the case settled and the client understood he would be obligated to Mr. Fisher for her contingency agreement attorney’s fees. Mr. Fisher knew that his client was not satisfied with his representation and unhappy with the amount of settlement. When Mr. Fisher prepared the accounting and statement of his time and expenses, he conditioned his client’s acceptance of his client’s own funds on his concession that he was satisfied with both the settlement and Mr. Fisher’s legal Representation. In the Oregon disciplinary case Mr. Fisher admitted that he charged and collected a fee in excess of the fee that his client had agreed to pay under the contingency fee agreement in violation of RPC 1.5(a); that by failing to obtain written informed consent from his client to continue the representation when he had a personal interest in obtaining the release, Mr. Fisher engaged in a personal interest conflict in violation with RPC 1.7(a)(2); and that by entering into the release with his client, he failed to obtain written and informed consent from his then unrepresented client in violation of RPC 1.8(h)(2).
The Idaho Supreme Court ordered that Mr. Fisher’s suspension in Idaho would be from October 15, 2016 until November 14, 2016, simultaneous with the Oregon suspension. Mr. Fisher agreed to not actively practice law in Idaho commencing October 15, 2016, regardless whether the Idaho Disciplinary Order was entered before that date. To be reinstated in Idaho, Mr. Fisher must give notice to the Idaho Supreme Court that he has been reinstated in Oregon.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On November 10, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Pocatello attorney Craig R. Jorgensen from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years, with all but eighteen (18) months of such suspension withheld, credit for time served, and three (3) years of probation with certain terms and conditions. The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Jorgensen violated Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5(a) [Unauthorized practice of law] and 8.1(b) [Knowing failure to respond to lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority].
Mr. Jorgensen was previously suspended beginning on November 14, 2012 for two years with all but four (4) months withheld. While still suspended the Idaho State Bar filed formal charges against Mr. Jorgensen for violations of I.R.P.C. 5.5(a) and 1.15(d) for continuing to practice law while suspended and for failing to promptly deliver funds to a client entitled to receive them. That Complaint sought the imposition of the remaining twenty (20) months of suspension withheld from the earlier case plus additional suspension. On June 5, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order imposing the remaining twenty (20) months of suspension to November 14, 2014, and an additional ninety (90) days to February 14, 2015.
On April 1, 2016, the Idaho State Bar filed a Complaint against Mr. Jorgensen alleging violations of 5.5(a) and 8.1(b). The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a Recommendation issued by a Hearing Committee of the Professional Conduct Board on September 8, 2016, which followed the submission of a Stipulation by the parties agreeing to the sanction imposed by the Idaho Supreme Court, i.e., five (5) years suspension with all but eighteen (18) months withheld, credit for time served beginning February 14, 2015, the date on which Mr. Jorgensen was eligible to petition for reinstatement, to August 14, 2016.
The Disciplinary Order also provided that following the eighteen (18) month period of imposed suspension and reinstatement, if any, Mr. Jorgensen will serve a three (3) year period of probation on specified terms and conditions.
The Idaho Supreme Court further ordered that as a condition of reinstatement, Mr. Jorgensen must show that he has satisfied all requirements of I.B.C.R. 518(b), and must reimburse the Idaho State Bar for all costs associated with his prior two disciplinary proceeding pursuant to I.B.C.R. 506(j).
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, ID 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On August 19, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Idaho Falls attorney Kelly D. Mallard from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with the entire six (6) months withheld and placing him on disciplinary probation.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Mallard violated Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 [Scope of Representation], 1.3 [Diligence], and 1.4 [Communication]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding and related to the following circumstances.
After successfully representing a minor charged with trespassing at his high school following his expulsion from that high school, the minor’s parent retained Mr. Mallard to file a tort claim action relating to the arrest. Mr. Mallard filed the civil complaint in April, 2014. His client then agreed that to reduce expenses, she would arrange for service on the County-related defendants and Respondent would arrange for service on the School-related defendants. Mr. Mallard did not advise his client how to properly serve the complaint on the County-related defendants and service was not effective. The County-related defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of service of process and the School-related defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Respondent did not file a response to those motions and did not inform his client or her son about the hearings on those motions. In November, 2014, the Court entered orders of dismissal with respect to all defendants. Mr. Mallard did not inform his client or her son about the dismissal until approximately three months later.
The Disciplinary Order provides that Mr. Mallard’s six-month suspension is withheld subject to the terms and conditions of his one-year probation. The terms and conditions of probation include that if Mr. Mallard admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during his period of probation, regardless of whether that admission or determination occurs after the expiration of the probationary period, the entire withheld suspension shall be imposed. Mr. Mallard is also to report monthly that representation of his clients is consistent with the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
The withheld suspension does not limit Mr. Mallard’s eligibility to practice law.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On August 11, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an Order of Disbarment, disbarring Michael R. Robinson from the practice of law in Idaho. Following a contested hearing, the Hearing Committee of the Professional Conduct Board issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation which recommended that Mr. Robinson be disbarred and directed Bar Counsel to petition the Idaho Supreme Court for an order of interim suspension. Bar Counsel filed a petition and on June 3, 2014, the Court entered an Order placing Mr. Robinson on interim suspension. Mr. Robinson appealed the Hearing Committee’s disbarment recommendation. After briefing, the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order upheld the Hearing Committee’s Recommendation.
The Complaint alleged violations of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct in six different client matters. Two of those client matters were civil and four were criminal. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Robinson admitted the alleged violations in Counts Three through Six of the Complaint. With respect to those four cases, Mr. Robinson admitted and the Hearing Committee found that he did not abide by his clients’ objectives (I.R.P.C. 1.2), did not act diligently (I.R.P.C. 1.3), failed to adequately communicate with his clients (I.R.P.C. 1.4), was incompetent in his representation of one client (I.R.P.C. 1.1) and in two of those cases, his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice (I.R.P.C. 8.4(d)).
Consequently, the hearing was conducted on the allegations contained in Counts One and Two of the Complaint. During the two-day hearing, over 70 exhibits were admitted and the Idaho State Bar (ISB) presented eight witnesses, including three of Mr. Robinson’s former clients. Mr. Robinson testified on his own behalf. During cross-examination, Mr. Robinson admitted that his conduct violated seven Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, but continued to deny the other ten alleged violations of those rules in Counts One and Two.
Count One related to Mr. Robinson’s representation of an 18-year-old charged with felony lewd conduct with a child under 16 years of age. Mr. Robinson admitted that he violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Scope of Representation] and I.R.P.C. 1.4 [Communication], and the Hearing Committee concluded that the ISB proved by clearing and convincing evidence that Mr. Robinson violated I.R.P.C. 1.1 [Competence], I.R.P.C. 1.6(a) [Confidentiality], I.R.P.C. 1.16(a)(3) [Representation Following Discharge], I.R.P.C. 1.16(d) [Failing to Return Papers and Property to Client Following Termination], I.R.P.C. 3.1 [Meritorious Claims and Contentions], I.R.P.C. 3.3 [Candor Toward the Tribunal], I.R.P.C. 4.4 [Respect for Rights of Third Persons] and I.R.P.C. 8.4 [Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice].
Those rules violations were based primarily on pleadings Mr. Robinson filed in his client’s criminal case. In that case, Mr. Robinson filed pleadings, after his representation was terminated by his client, containing untrue statements that were prejudicial to his client and the client’s family. Substitute counsel filed motions to strike those pleadings and requested the court seal those pleadings to prevent public disclosure of private, untrue facts which could unduly prejudice the case and the rights of a victim in another criminal case. The court agreed and struck those pleadings from the record and sealed them from public disclosure. The court’s order provided that it appeared at the time the pleadings were filed, Mr. Robinson had already been discharged by his client, the pleadings were filed without client authority and based upon facts which were untrue, or, unverified, irrelevant and beyond the scope of any relevant issue before the court. The Hearing Committee concluded that the timing of those pleadings indicated that Mr. Robinson’s primary purpose was to harass his client and the client’s family for terminating his representation and that he provided no justification or reasonable explanation for filing those documents.
Count Two of the Complaint related to two clients who retained Mr. Robinson to represent them in a tort action against the City of McCall based on the police department’s disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity. Mr. Robinson filed a Notice of Tort Claim, but was eventually terminated by the clients, because in part, the clients did not believe he was diligently pursuing the case. During cross-examination at the hearing, Mr. Robinson admitted that he violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Scope of Representation], I.R.P.C. 1.4 [Communication], I.R.P.C. 1.6(a) [Confidentiality], I.R.P.C. 1.9(c) [Duties to Former Clients] and 1.16(d) [Failing to Return Papers and Property to Client Following Termination], and the Hearing Committee determined that the ISB proved by clearing and convincing evidence that Respondent violated I.R.P.C. 8.4(d) [Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice].
The Hearing Committee concluded that Respondent continued to act on behalf of his clients after they had terminated his representation and repeatedly requested that he cease communications with opposing counsel on their behalf, and that he disclosed confidential information to opposing counsel that was detrimental to the clients’ case. The Hearing Committee concluded that Mr. Robinson communicated threats to one client that he had information that could affect the client’s real estate license and continued to seek money from his former clients after they settled the case with the City. The Hearing Committee concluded that Mr. Robinson actively campaigned against his clients’ interests in communicating with opposing counsel, which had the potential to severely damage their case.
The Hearing Committee determined that Mr. Robinson violated 12 different Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct and committed 30 violations of those rules in connection with his representation in the six client matters. Based upon that determination, the Hearing Committee recommended that Mr. Robinson be disbarred and the Idaho Supreme Court upheld that Recommendation.
The Idaho Supreme Court disbarred Mr. Robinson, effective August 11, 2016. As a consequence, Mr. Robinson shall not apply for admission to the Idaho State Bar sooner than five years from that date. If he does make such application for admission, he will be required to comply with all bar admission requirements in Section II of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules and shall have the burden of overcoming the rebuttable presumption of the “unfitness to practice law.” By the terms of the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order, Mr. Robinson’s name was stricken from the records of the Idaho Supreme Court and his right to practice law before the courts in Idaho was terminated on August 11, 2016.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On June 20, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order accepting the resignation in lieu of disciplinary proceedings of Pocatello attorney, John C. Souza. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to the following conduct.
Mr. Souza represented a client in three different matters, a criminal case, a civil forfeiture action and a parole revocation. In the civil forfeiture case, Mr. Souza received documents allegedly supporting that the cash was not subject to forfeiture, because those funds were payments from the client’s former employer. Mr. Souza received and did not forward those documents to opposing counsel or otherwise disclose the documents as part of the defense of that case. Mr. Souza did not file a response to the summary judgment motion, failed to appear for the hearing on the summary judgment motion and failed to attend the hearing on the opposing party’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The Court entered Judgment against Respondent’s client.
In the criminal case, Mr. Souza filed a Rule 35 motion on behalf of his client, and requested that his client be remanded to drug court. The Judge stated he would consider the possibility of drug court if the client was accepted and if the Parole Commission agreed. Mr. Souza asked the Judge to consider changing the sentence from 3 years fixed to 2 years fixed if the client was not accepted to drug court. The drug court denied the application, and Mr. Souza did not formally request changing the sentence. The Court denied the Rule 35 motion.
Mr. Souza failed to appear for his client’s parole revocation hearing and failed to inform his client prior to the hearing that he would not appear. The client’s parole was revoked.
Mr. Souza did pay the client’s civil forfeiture Judgment, reimbursed the retainer fee and paid restitution totaling $6,089.92. In addition, Bar Counsel considered as a mitigating factor that Mr. Souza suffers from significant health issues that may have contributed to the deficient representation of his client.
Mr. Souza admitted that he violated I.R.P.C. 1.2 [Failure to abide by client objectives], I.R.P.C. 1.3 [Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness], I.R.P.C. 1.4 [Failure to reasonably communicate with client] and I.R.P.C. 8.4(d) [Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice].
The Idaho Supreme Court accepted Mr. Souza’s resignation in lieu of disciplinary proceedings effective July 1, 2016. By the terms of the Order, Mr. Souza may not make application for admission to the Idaho State Bar sooner than five (5) years from the date of his resignation. If he does make such application for admission, he will be required to comply with all bar admission requirements in Section II of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules and shall have the burden of overcoming the rebuttable presumption of the “unfitness to practice law.”
By the terms of the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order, Mr. Souza’s name was stricken from the records of the Idaho Supreme Court and his right to practice law before the courts in Idaho was terminated on July 1, 2016.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On May 25, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order reinstating Theresa A. Martin to practice law in Idaho.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On May 20, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Boise attorney Lisa D. Shultz from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with all six (6) months withheld, and placing her on a disciplinary probation.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Ms. Shultz violated Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) [Commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding and related to the following circumstances.
On October 17, 2014, Ms. Shultz was charged in Ada County with one misdemeanor count of using a telephone to disturb the peace, relating to her contact with a former legal intern. On March 16, 2015, Ms. Shultz pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disturbing the peace. The Court imposed a five-day jail sentence, entered a Withheld Judgment, and ordered Ms. Shultz to complete a two-year unsupervised probation with conditions requiring her to follow any Idaho State Bar recommendations. Also on March 16, 2015, Ms. Shultz entered guilty pleas in two unrelated cases to misdemeanor charges of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. In those cases, the Court entered a Withheld Judgment and ordered Ms. Shultz to complete a one-month unsupervised probation. The possession and paraphernalia charges were dismissed on April 30, 2015.
The Disciplinary Order provides that Ms. Shultz’s six-month suspension is withheld subject to the terms and conditions of her disciplinary probation, which runs through March 15, 2017. The terms and conditions of probation include: avoidance of any alcohol or drug-related traffic violations; a program of random urinalysis, with provision that if Ms. Shultz tests positive for alcohol or other tested substances or misses a random urinalysis test without prior approval, the entire withheld suspension shall be immediately imposed and served; and if Ms. Shultz admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during her probationary period, regardless whether that admission or determination occurs after the expiration of the probationary period, the entire withheld suspension shall be imposed.
The withheld suspension does not limit Ms. Shultz’s eligibility to practice law.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On April 21, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order Granting Petition for Reinstatement, reinstating Karl W. Kime to practice law in Idaho subject to a two-year disciplinary probation.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On May 3, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order Granting Request for Readmission to Practice Law in Idaho reinstating Drake Dee Mesenbrink to practice law in Idaho.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On February 26, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney Theresa A. Martin from the practice of law for 90 days. The 90-day suspension period had previously been withheld under a June 19, 2013 Disciplinary Order issued by the Court in a separate formal charge case. That Order included a two-year disciplinary probation with a condition providing that a 90-day suspension would be imposed if Ms. Martin was found to have engaged in professional misconduct that resulted in a private sanction. Ms. Martin stipulated to the imposition of the 90-day suspension based on conduct during her disciplinary probation that resulted in a private sanction.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On February 26, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney David G. Peña from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, with all but six (6) months of that suspension withheld, effective March 15, 2016. The Disciplinary Order included an 18-month disciplinary probation upon Mr. Peña’s reinstatement. The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Peña violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Failure to abide by client objectives], I.R.P.C. 1.3 [Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness], I.R.P.C. 1.4 [Failure to reasonably communicate] and I.R.P.C. 5.3 [Failure to make reasonable efforts to ensure a nonlawyer employee’s conduct was compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations].
The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to Mr. Peña’s representation of three clients in separate matters. In the first matter, Mr. Peña represented a client pro bono in a collection case. Mr. Peña failed to forward payments made by the client to the creditor as part of a negotiated settlement, failed to inform the client that the creditor had filed a motion to reconsider dismissal of the case based on the client’s alleged failure to make payments, and failed to inform the client of the hearing on the motion to reconsider or to appear at the hearing on the client’s behalf. Mr. Peña refunded all payments made by the client to his office and the collection case was settled. In the second matter, Mr. Peña represented an incarcerated client on a rider program seeking to transfer her anticipated probation term from Idaho to Utah. Mr. Peña filed a Notice of Appearance and discovery request, but thereafter failed to communicate with the client or perform any further services. The Court ultimately declined to order probation for the client and Mr. Peña refunded the client’s $750 fee payment. In the third matter, Mr. Peña represented a client in a felony controlled substances case. Mr. Peña failed to respond to the client’s requests for case updates and copies of relevant discovery and other documents. The client ultimately pleaded guilty under a plea agreement negotiated by Mr. Peña.
Mr. Peña will serve an 18-month probation following his reinstatement, subject to the conditions of probation specified in the Disciplinary Order. Those conditions include that Mr. Peña will serve the period of withheld suspension if he admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during his probation period. During his probation, Mr. Peña must continue treatment with his health care provider and ensure that treatment reports are provided by the health care provider to Bar Counsel on a quarterly basis.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On January 19, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Coeur d’Alene attorney Staci L. Anderson from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with the entire one year withheld and placing her on disciplinary probation.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Ms. Anderson violated Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], and 8.4(d) [Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding and related to the following circumstances.
In July 2013, Ms. Anderson was hired to represent a client charged with first-degree murder. The Court scheduled an October 3, 2014 discovery deadline and a three-week jury trial for October 28, 2014. On October 3, 2014, Ms. Anderson filed a motion for extension of time to disclose expert witnesses and the Court granted that extension to October 10, 2014. On October 10, 2014, Ms. Anderson filed a motion requesting a continuance of the trial, and a 30-day extension to identify expert witnesses and file motions in limine. Ms. Anderson filed an Affidavit in support of that motion stating that she was not prepared to competently and effectively defend her client. In the Affidavit and at the hearing, Ms. Anderson specified the reasons that she was not prepared for trial. Ms. Anderson had associated with another lawyer prior to the hearing and the Court determined that Ms. Anderson could remain on the case, but was prohibited from examining witnesses and could not present any motions to the Court. The client subsequently pleaded guilty to an amended charge of voluntary manslaughter.
The Disciplinary Order provides that Ms. Anderson’s one-year suspension is withheld subject to the terms and conditions of her two-year probation. The terms and conditions of probation include: a program of random urinalysis, with provision that if Ms. Anderson tests positive for alcohol or other tested substances or misses a random urinalysis test, without prior approval, the entire withheld suspension shall be immediately imposed and served; participation in individual therapy; and if Ms. Anderson admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during her period of probation, regardless of whether that admission or determination occurs after the expiration of the probationary period, the entire withheld suspension shall be imposed. The withheld suspension does not limit Ms. Anderson’s eligibility to practice law.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On October 28, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney Allen W. Walterscheid from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with four (4) months withheld and terms of probation upon any reinstatement. The Idaho Supreme Court found Mr. Walterscheid violated l.R.P.C. 8.l(b) [Failure to Respond to Bar Counsel in a Disciplinary Matter], I.B.C.R. 505(e) [Failure to Cooperate With or Respond to a Request from Bar Counsel] and I.R.P.C. 1.15(a) and 1.15(c) [Safekeeping Property]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to the following circumstances.
On May 21, 2015, the Idaho State Bar filed a formal charge Complaint. The formal charge Complaint detailed Mr. Walterscheid’s failure to respond to multiple certified letters from Bar Counsel requesting his explanation of three trust account overdraft notices the Idaho State Bar received from Respondent’s bank. Respondent did not answer the Complaint and the Idaho State Bar filed a Motion to Deem Admissions (For Failure to Answer) and For Imposition of Sanction which was heard on August 4, 2015. Mr. Walterscheid appeared at that hearing where the parties agreed that the allegations in the Complaint were deemed admitted and that the parties would either stipulate to or conduct a hearing on the appropriate sanction.
Mr. Walterscheid voluntarily did not practice law in Idaho since the date his license was canceled, for nonpayment of dues, March 3, 2015, and the Disciplinary Order provides that Mr. Walterscheid’s eight (8) months actual suspension is retroactive to March 3, 2015 and will last until November 3, 2015 and four (4) months will be withheld. Mr. Walterscheid must reinstate his license from the disciplinary suspension and administratively reinstate his canceled license. Mr. Walterscheid will serve a one (1) year probation following his reinstatement subject to the conditions of probation specified in the Disciplinary Order. Those conditions include that Mr. Walterscheid will serve the withheld suspension if he admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during Mr. Walterscheid’s period of probation. During his probation, Mr. Walterscheid must provide monthly reports to Bar Counsel attesting that his representation of his clients is consistent with his responsibilities under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct and that he is timely responding to any inquiries from Bar Counsel’s Office.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On November 12, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Coeur d’Alene attorney Karl W. Kime from the practice of law for fifteen (15) months, retroactive to January 1, 2015, the date Mr. Kime was eligible for reinstatement based on a prior suspension. The Disciplinary Order also imposed a twelve (12) month period of withheld suspension and provided that upon reinstatement, Mr. Kime shall serve a two (2) year disciplinary probation.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Kime violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding and related to the following circumstances.
On July 19, 2013, the Idaho Supreme Court entered a Disciplinary Order suspending Mr. Kime for one year, with all one year withheld, based on Mr. Kime’s felony conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”). The Disciplinary Order placed Mr. Kime on disciplinary probation through April 3, 2015, and required that he comply with the conditions of his criminal probation, which prohibited any consumption of alcohol. Thereafter, Mr. Kime consumed alcohol in violation of the terms of his criminal and disciplinary probations. Consequently, on May 8, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court entered a Disciplinary Order imposing the one-year suspension that was previously withheld.
In November 2015, while still on criminal probation, Mr. Kime was stopped by law enforcement while driving his vehicle after consuming alcohol. He was charged in Kootenai County with felony DUI. The Court subsequently determined the traffic stop was illegal and the criminal charge was dismissed. As part of the resulting disciplinary case, Mr. Kime admitted that his conduct violated I.R.P.C. 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).
The Disciplinary Order provides that twelve (12) months of Mr. Kime’s twenty-seven (27) month suspension is withheld subject to the terms of his two (2) year probation upon reinstatement, with terms including the following: avoidance of any alcohol or drug-related criminal acts or traffic violations; a program of random urinalysis, with provision that if Mr. Kime tests positive for alcohol or other tested substances or misses a random urinalysis test without prior approval, the entire withheld suspension shall be immediately imposed; and if Mr. Kime admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during his period of probation, the twelve (12) month withheld suspension shall be imposed.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On September 23, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court entered a Disciplinary Order imposing a withheld 90-day suspension and a six-month disciplinary probation regarding Boise attorney Charles C. Crafts.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Crafts violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Scope of Representation] and I.R.P.C. 1.4 [Communication]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Crafts admitted that he violated those Rules.
The formal charge case related to Mr. Crafts’ representation of a client in a breach of contract case, for which he charged no fees. In that case, Mr. Crafts did not respond to the opposing party’s discovery requests, motion for summary judgment or motion for fees and costs. He also did not appear at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment or adequately communicate with his client about the status of the case, including the entry of a default judgment against the client. As restitution in the formal charge case, Mr. Crafts paid to satisfy the judgment entered against his former client and also paid attorney fees incurred by the client subsequent to the entry of the judgment.
- The Disciplinary Order provides that the 90-day suspension will be withheld and that Mr. Crafts will serve a six-month period of probation, subject to the condition that he will serve the withheld suspension if he violates the terms of his probation or admits or is found to have violated any Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for conduct that occurred during the probationary period.
The withheld suspension and probation do not limit Mr. Crafts’ eligibility to practice law.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On September 17, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order accepting the resignation in lieu of discipline of Eagle attorney, John T. Bujak. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to the following conduct.
During his tenure as the Canyon County Prosecutor in 2009-2010, by agreement of Canyon County and Nampa, funds for prosecutorial services for Nampa were received and deposited in Mr. Bujak’s trust account, with an expected reimbursement from the trust account to Canyon County at the end of each fiscal year. Mr. Bujak removed funds from his trust account for personal use. At the conclusion of fiscal year 2010, there were insufficient trust account funds to reimburse Canyon County for expenses related to the Nampa prosecutorial services. Mr. Bujak admitted that these circumstances violated I.R.P.C. 1.4(b) [Communication with Client], 1.7(a)(2) [Conflict of Interest: Current Clients], and 1.15(a), (b), (c) and (e) (effective 2009-2010) [Safekeeping Property].
In addition, during the criminal prosecution of Respondent on a felony charge of preparing false evidence and a computer crime, Respondent admitted one count of contempt for willfully failing to disclose expert materials pursuant to I.C.R. 16 by the deadline ordered by the court. Mr. Bujak admitted that these circumstances violated I.R.P.C. 3.3(a) [Candor Toward the Tribunal], 3.4(c) (d) [Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel], and 8.4(d) [Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice].
The Idaho Supreme Court accepted Mr. Bujak’s resignation in lieu of discipline. By the terms of the Order, Mr. Bujak may not make application for admission to the Idaho State Bar sooner than 4 years, 4 months and 11 days from the date of his resignation, reflecting previously ordered credit related to his voluntary interim suspension. If he does make such application for admission, he will be required to comply with all bar admission requirements in Section II of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules and shall have the burden of overcoming the rebuttal presumption of the “unfitness to practice law”.
By the terms of the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order, Mr. Bujak’s name was stricken from the records of the Idaho Supreme Court and his right to practice law before the courts in Idaho was terminated on September 17, 2015.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On August 10, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney David A. Goicoechea for one (1) year. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar reciprocal disciplinary proceeding.
Mr. Goicoechea was admitted to practice law in Washington and Idaho and practiced law in Spokane, Washington. On October 10, 2014, the Supreme Court of Washington entered an Order approving a stipulation to one (1) year suspension. The Washington suspension was effective October 17, 2014. In the Washington disciplinary case, Mr. Goicoechea stipulated to violations of the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 8.4(c), 3.4(c), 8.4(j) and 8.4(d). With the exception of RPC 8.4(j), those Washington rules correspond to the same Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Washington disciplinary case related to Mr. Goicoechea and his ex-wife’s divorce case. Mr. Goicoechea was found in contempt numerous times of court orders in the divorce case relating to spousal maintenance payments and his reporting requirements to the court. The Washington disciplinary case acknowledged as a mitigating factor that Mr. Goicoechea lacked sufficient funds to fully comply with his financial obligations.
Other than these proceedings, Mr. Goicoechea has no disciplinary history in Idaho or Washington.
Mr. Goicoechea voluntarily did not practice law in Idaho since the date of his Washington suspension and the Stipulation provided for and the Idaho Supreme Court ordered that Mr. Goicoechea’s suspension in Idaho would be retroactive to October 17, 2014 and will last until October 17, 2015.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On June 15, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order accepting the resignation in lieu of discipline of Boise lawyer Stephen J. Olson. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to the following conduct.
In response to a disciplinary grievance received from one of his clients, Mr. Olson acknowledged that he had essentially abandoned his practice. Thereafter, the District Court appointed an Attorney Receiver for Mr. Olson’s practice. Mr. Olson cooperated with the Attorney Receiver. The Attorney Receiver contacted and made arrangements for the representation of twelve of Mr. Olson’s current clients, including the client who had filed the grievance. Orders were then entered relieving the Attorney Receiver of her obligations.
In addition, Mr. Olson was on criminal probation relating to two DUI convictions. His criminal probation was revoked and he was sentenced to one year incarceration. Mr. Olson admitted that he intentionally did not follow or complete a number of the conditions of probation.
Mr. Olson admitted that these circumstances constituted violations of the I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Scope of Representation], 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4(a) [Communication], 1.16(a) and (d) [Responsibilities Upon Termination of Representation], 3.4(c) [Disobeying an Obligation Under the Rules of a Tribunal], 8.4(b) [Criminal Act] and 8.4(d) [Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice].
The Idaho Supreme Court accepted Mr. Olson’s resignation in lieu of discipline. By the terms of the Order, Mr. Olson may not make application for admission to the Idaho State Bar sooner than five years from the date of his resignation. If he does make such application for admission, he will be required to comply with all of the bar admission requirements in Section II of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules and shall have the burden of overcoming the rebuttal presumption of the “unfitness to practice law”.
By the terms of the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order, Mr. Olson’s name was stricken from the records of the Idaho Supreme Court and his right to practice law before the courts in Idaho was terminated on June 15, 2015.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On March 30, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending attorney Dale L. Russell for three (3) years. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar reciprocal disciplinary proceeding.
Mr. Russell was admitted to practice law in Washington and Idaho. On October 28, 2014, the Supreme Court of Washington entered an Order approving a stipulation to a three (3) year suspension. The Washington suspension was effective November 4, 2014. In the Washington disciplinary case, Mr. Russell stipulated to violations of the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC). Mr. Russell admitted to two violations of RPC 1.1, five violations of RPC 8.4 (d) and one violation of RPC 1.2(a), 1.4 and 1.7. Those Washington rules correspond to the same Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Washington disciplinary case related to Mr. Russell’s engagement to handle a probate and to set up a special needs trust. The personal representative of the estate lived in Wisconsin. Mr. Russell filed an appointment of a resident agent, which contained an inaccurate statement concerning his wife’s eligibility to act as the resident agent in the case. He also directed the personal representative to delegate her rights and responsibilities as personal representative to Mr. Russell’s wife, made his wife the sole trustee of the special needs trust and failed to advise the personal representative that the appointment of Mr. Russell’s wife, as trustee, was contrary to the terms of the will and the duties of a personal representative. Mr. Russell also represented to a counseling center and its lawyers that his wife was the legitimate trustee of the special needs trust. Mr. Russell also represented an incompetent person in a guardianship proceeding without the required prior court appointment. Mr. Russell also attempted to obtain the signature of the personal representative on an affidavit purporting to show she had declined to serve as trustee of the special needs trust, when she had not. Finally, Mr. Russell represented multiple clients with concurrent conflicts of interest.
The Stipulation provided for and the Idaho Supreme Court ordered that Mr. Russell’s suspension in Idaho would be retroactive to November 4, 2014 and will last until November 4, 2017, and that as a condition of reinstatement to the active practice of law in Idaho, he agreed he will not prepare on behalf of a client any instrument or pleading naming himself or his spouse as personal representative, trustee, guardian, or agent of a personal representative, trustee or guardian, unless Mr. Russell is related to the client as defined by I.R.P.C. 1.8(c).
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.
On March 2, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Nampa attorney, Mitchell R. Barker, from the practice of law for a period of fifteen (15) months, with six (6) months of that suspension withheld and placing him on probation following any reinstatement.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Barker violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Failure to abide by client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and consult with the client as to means by which those objectives will be pursued], I.R.P.C. 1.3 [Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness], I.R.P.C. 1.4 [Failure to reasonably communicate with client] and I.R.P.C. 1.16(a)(2) [Failure to withdraw when the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar discipline case in which Mr. Barker admitted that he violated those Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mr. Barker’s misconduct related to his defense of two clients in a civil case. Plaintiff claimed Mr. Barker’s clients defaulted on loans secured by promissory notes and personal guarantees. Mr. Barker’s clients initially represented themselves in the litigation and were facing a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and a motion to compel discovery responses. The hearings on those motions were vacated based upon Mr. Barker’s appearance. Plaintiff then filed a motion for summary judgment and scheduled a hearing. Mr. Barker did not file any opposition or objection to the motion for summary judgment, failed to provide any discovery responses to Plaintiff and failed to appear at the hearing on the amended motion to compel. After that hearing, Plaintiff filed a separate civil action against Mr. Barker’s clients and another entity controlled by them. That case was eventually consolidated with the other pending case. Mr. Barker then filed a motion to withdraw and affidavit in support stating that he had been suffering from personal health difficulties and had received notice that he had recently been determined to be disabled. He stated he was closing his law practice and that his illness interfered with his representation of his clients. The court granted the motion to withdraw. The clients eventually appeared with new counsel and the case was completed on the merits.
The Disciplinary Order requires that before he can be reinstated following his suspension, Mr. Barker must demonstrate that, medically and psychologically, he will be able to resume the practice of law in a fashion that will not be detrimental to the integrity of the Bar, to the administration of justice or against the public interest. The Disciplinary Order provides that the nine (9) month suspension will be served following Mr. Barker’s current suspension, through February 29, 2016. Mr. Barker will serve a two (2) year probation following any reinstatement, subject to conditions of probation specified in the Order. Those conditions include that Mr. Barker will serve the additional six (6) month suspension if he admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during the period of probation. Mr. Barker must also remain under his physician’s care; comply with any treatment regimen prescribed by his physician and other health care providers; and provide monthly reports to Bar Counsel attesting that he is representing his clients consistent with his responsibilities under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
On February 25, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court entered a Disciplinary Order suspending Nampa attorney R. Aaron Morriss from the practice of law for a period of five years, with all but two years of such suspension withheld, effective January 30, 2015.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Morriss violated I.R.P.C. 1.7(a)(2) [Conflict of interest based on personal interests of the lawyer]; 1.8(j) [Sexual relations with a client]; and 8.4(d) [Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Morriss admitted that he violated those Rules.
The formal charge case related to Mr. Morriss’s relationships with two female clients. With respect to the first client, Mr. Morris texted the client explicit pictures of himself and engaged in sexual relations with the client during his representation of her in a custody case. With respect to the second client, Mr. Morriss texted the client explicit pictures of himself, took explicit pictures of the client, and engaged in sexual relations with the client during his representation of her in a parental termination case.
The Disciplinary Order provided that upon reinstatement, if any, after the two-year period of imposed suspension, Mr. Morriss will serve a two-year period of probation with terms and conditions that include counseling and the immediate imposition of the withheld period of suspension if he violates the terms of his probation or admits or is found to have violated any Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for conduct that occurred during the probationary period.
On January 29, 2015, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Boise attorney Gregory J. Vietz from the practice of law for a period of 9 months, with the entire 9 months withheld and placing him on disciplinary probation.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Vietz violated I.R.P.C. 8.4(b) [Commission of a crime] and 8.4(d) [Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding and related to the following circumstances.
In January, 2013, Mr. Vietz was charged in Ada County with two felonies, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, felony use of a deadly weapon in a commission of a felony, and four misdemeanors, battery, resisting or obstructing officers, discharge of a firearm within city limits and assault on a police dog. In August, 2013, Respondent entered Alford pleas to two misdemeanors, discharging a firearm within city limits and assaulting a police dog. The court entered judgment imposing a sentence of 28 days incarceration, a fine, public service, and placed Mr. Vietz on supervised probation for two years.
In February, 2013, Mr. Vietz completed a 90-day intensive outpatient recovery program and he has attended a continuing care relapse prevention program. Since August 19, 2013, Mr. Vietz has been randomly tested for alcohol or controlled substances and all tests have been negative.
The Disciplinary Order provides that Mr. Vietz’s 9 month suspension is withheld during his disciplinary probation until February 19, 2016 and subject to the terms and conditions of probation, which include: compliance with the terms of his criminal probation; avoidance of any alcohol or drug related criminal acts, or alcohol or drug related traffic violations; participation in a program of random urinalysis; and if Mr. Vietz admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during his period of probation, regardless whether that admission or determination occurs after the expiration of the probationary period, the entire withheld suspension shall be imposed.
The withheld suspension does not limit Mr. Vietz’s eligibility to practice law.
On December 15, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Washington attorney Richard E. Kriger from the practice of law for a period of two years, with all but four months of such suspension withheld.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Kriger violated I.R.P.C. 8.4(c) [Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation] and 8.4(d) [Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Kriger admitted that he violated those Rules.
The formal charge case related to a minor’s compromise case in which Mr. Kriger was appointed as conservator for his then 6-year-old son, D.K., who had received a $25,000 settlement for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Despite a court order directing Mr. Kriger to hold the settlement funds in trust for D.K.’s benefit until D.K. turned 18, Mr. Kriger used the settlement funds for his own living expenses. When D.K. turned 18 and requested the funds, Mr. Kriger falsely informed D.K. that the funds were unavailable until D.K. turned 21, and subsequently advised D.K. that the funds had been exhausted.
Prior to the Idaho State Bar’s filing of the formal charge Complaint, D.K. accepted Mr. Kriger’s offer to repay the $25,000 in monthly installments. Mr. Kriger has sent the monthly restitution payments to D.K. as agreed since February 2014.
The Disciplinary Order provided that during the four-month period of suspension and until reinstatement, if any, Mr. Kriger shall send D.K. monthly payments until the entire $25,000, plus an additional $24,772.60 in interest, is reimbursed. The Disciplinary Order also provided that upon reinstatement, Mr. Kriger will serve a three-year probation with conditions that include his continuing monthly payments to D.K. until the entire $25,000, plus $24,772.60 in interest, is reimbursed. Under the Disciplinary Order, if Respondent fails to submit payments to D.K. during his suspension period or probation, or if he violates any other condition of his probation, the 20-month period of suspension that was previously withheld shall be automatically and immediately imposed.
On December 15, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order issuing a Public Reprimand to Lewiston attorney Danny J. Radakovich. The Disciplinary Order included a withheld 90-day suspension and a six-month disciplinary probation.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Radakovich violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Abide by client objectives], 1.3 [Diligence] and 1.4 [Communication]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Radakovich admitted that he violated those Rules.
The formal charge case related to Mr. Radakovich’s representation of a client in a conditional use permit case. The client sought judicial review of a county’s decision limiting his permit for a gravel operation. In the underlying case, Mr. Radakovich failed to timely file his client’s appeal brief despite multiple extensions and failed to promptly inform his client when the Court dismissed the case for failure to timely file the appeal brief. Mr. Radakovich was ultimately successful in having the Judgment dismissing the case set aside, and also refunded all fees relating to his representation.
The Disciplinary Order provides that the 90-day suspension will be withheld and that Mr. Radakovich will serve a six-month period of probation subject to the condition that he will serve the withheld suspension if he admits or is found to have violated any Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for conduct that occurred during the probationary period.
The public reprimand, withheld suspension and probation do not limit Mr. Radakovich’s eligibility to practice law.
On October 27, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order accepting the resignation in lieu of discipline of Boise attorney, Mark A. Ellison. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to the following conduct.
On May 17, 2013, a federal grand jury issued a Superseding Indictment. The Superseding Indictment charged Mr. Ellison with 88 counts of securities fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property, conspiracy to commit money laundering and interstate transportation of property taken by fraud. The charges related to Mr. Ellison’s representation of DBSI.
On July 7, 2014, following trial, a federal jury found Mr. Ellison guilty of 44 counts of securities fraud and aiding and abetting securities fraud. The jury found Mr. Ellison not guilty on 35 counts and 9 counts of the Superseding Indictment were dismissed on motion of the United States.
Mr. Ellison was sentenced to 5 years on each of the counts, all to be served concurrently. Following his release from custody, Mr. Ellison will be on supervised release for 3 years.
The Idaho Supreme Court accepted Mr. Ellison’s resignation in lieu of discipline. By the terms of the Order, Mr. Ellison may not make application for admission to the Idaho State Bar sooner than five years from the date of his resignation. If he does make such application for admission, he will be required to comply with all of the bar admission requirements in Section II of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules and shall have the burden of overcoming the rebuttal presumption of the “unfitness to practice law.”
The Order also provides that consistent with I.B.C.R. 512(d), if an appeals court vacates or reverses Mr. Ellison’s conviction, or if a trial court enters an order granting a motion for a new trial, a motion for judgment of acquittal, or a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty, that removes Mr. Ellison’s conviction of the crimes, which are the basis for this sanction, Mr. Ellison may file with the Clerk of the Idaho Supreme Court, a motion for dissolution or amendment of the sanction.
By the terms of the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order, Mr. Ellison’s name was stricken from the records of the Idaho Supreme Court and his right to practice law before the courts in the State of Idaho was terminated on October 27, 2014.
On October 27, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Meridian attorney Brian L. Boyle from the practice of law for a period of 90 days, effective October 1, 2014. The Disciplinary Order included a withheld six-month suspension and a one-year disciplinary probation upon reinstatement.
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Boyle violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) [Scope of representation], 1.3 [Diligence], and 1.4 [Communication]. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Boyle admitted that he violated those rules.
The formal charge case related to Mr. Boyle’s representation of a client who sought a guardianship of a disabled child. In that case, Mr. Boyle failed to promptly file the guardianship petition, failed to communicate with his client about the status of the case, and failed to communicate with the minor’s appointed guardian ad litem. The client erroneously believed that she had been appointed as guardian. However, the Court had not appointed a guardian and instead scheduled a show cause hearing due to inactivity in the case. Approximately two months before the show cause hearing, the child died. At the show cause hearing, Mr. Boyle informed the Court that the child was still living and that his client wanted to be appointed guardian. After the hearing, the guardian ad litem contacted Mr. Boyle’s client, learned that the child was deceased, and informed the Court. The case was ultimately dismissed.
The Disciplinary Order provides that 90 days of suspension will be served effective October 1, 2014, and six months will be withheld. Mr. Boyle will also serve a one-year probation following reinstatement, subject to conditions specified in the Order.
On September 23, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Eagle attorney John T. Bujak from the practice of law for one year. Consistent with the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order providing that the time Mr. Bujak spent on a stipulated interim suspension would be credited toward any eventual sanction, Mr. Bujak has served the one-year suspension in this disciplinary matter. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to the following circumstances.
On October 21, 2011, the Idaho State Bar filed a formal charge Complaint. Mr. Bujak filed his Answer on November 14, 2011. That case and others were held in abeyance under a Stipulation for Interim Suspension. Mr. Bujak served that interim suspension from January 9, 2012 through August 28, 2013. On August 28, 2013, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order Dissolving Interim Suspension and Reinstating License.
The Complaint in this case alleged two counts of professional misconduct. With respect to Count One, Mr. Bujak admitted that he violated I.R.P.C. 1.4, 1.15(a), 1.15(c), and 8.4(d). Count One related to a breach of contract action against an estate. Following trial, the court instructed the parties to establish an escrow account for one party’s payment to Mr. Bujak’s estate client. Payments were made to Mr. Bujak, in care of his client. Mr. Bujak negotiated those checks but did not deposit the funds into his trust account, inform his client about the payments, or deliver any funds to his client. Mr. Bujak’s client was paid on a claim from the Client Assistance Fund and Mr. Bujak has agreed to make restitution to the Idaho State Bar for payments made from the Client Assistance Fund. Mr. Bujak was exonerated of criminal charges relating to these circumstances.
With respect to Count Two, Mr. Bujak admitted he violated I.R.P.C. 1.8(c). That count related to Mr. Bujak’s preparation of a trust agreement that listed a part-time assistant in Mr. Bujak’s office and Mr. Bujak as beneficiaries. In a subsequent proceeding, Mr. Bujak stipulated to declare the trust null and void, the property was restored to his client, and the court made no findings as to fault of any party.
The Disciplinary Order further provides that Bar Counsel agrees not to file any formal charges relating to four other pending disciplinary investigations until a pending federal criminal case against Mr. Bujak is completed at the trial level, either by trial or entry of a plea to any criminal charge in that case. Mr. Bujak agrees that if he is convicted of any criminal charge in the federal criminal case, he will resign his license to practice law in Idaho in lieu of disciplinary proceedings, which will encompass the four other pending disciplinary investigations. If that occurs, Mr. Bujak will receive credit for the remaining time he served on interim suspension.
Since Mr. Bujak received credit for the time previously served on interim suspension, this suspension does not limit Mr. Bujak’s eligibility to practice law.
On September 10, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Boise attorney Mitchell R. Barker for one year. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar reciprocal disciplinary proceeding.
Mr. Barker was admitted to practice law in Oregon and Idaho. On May 29, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court entered an Order Accepting Stipulation for Discipline that suspended Mr. Barker from the practice of law in the State of Oregon for one year, effective May 29, 2014. In the Oregon disciplinary case, while suspended from the practice of law in Oregon, Mr. Barker sent a letter on behalf of his client to the district attorney handling his client’s case and requested discovery, when Mr. Barker was not an active member of the Oregon State Bar. Mr. Barker did not notify his client or the district attorney that he was not authorized to practice law in Oregon at that time.
In a separate matter in Oregon, involving the same client, Mr. Barker allowed multiple judgments to be taken against his client in a contested probate matter, largely due to Mr. Barker’s inaction. His client was left to believe that Mr. Barker would be responsible for paying one or more of the judgments, but he never did so. Mr. Barker did, however, continue to represent his client in the probate case without obtaining her informed consent, confirmed in writing. In the Oregon case, Mr. Barker admitted violating Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4(a) and 1.4(b) [Communication], 1.7(a)(2) [Conflict of Interest] and 5.5(a) [Unauthorized Practice of Law]. Those rules correspond to the same Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order also specified a condition of reinstatement that Mr. Barker make a showing that he paid back the remaining balance of legal fees paid to him by his client or that such remaining balance was discharged in bankruptcy.
Older Public Discipline Notices
Alphabetical by attorney's last name
B. TODD BAILEY (Interim Suspension) - May 3, 2013
RICHARD A. BERGENSEN (Disbarment) - October 31, 2011
BRIAN L. BOYLE (Public Reprimand/Withheld Suspension/Probation) - March 24, 2014
JAY P. CLARK (Suspension) - July 30, 2012
M. PATRICK DUFFIN (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - September 27, 2012
BRYNINN T. ERICKSON (Interim Suspension) - October 4, 2013
CHERI K. GOCHBERG (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - November 20, 2012
DAVID C. JAQUOT (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - September 27, 2012
CRAIG R. JORGENSEN (Suspension) - October 31, 2012
CRAIG R. JORGENSEN (Suspension) - June 5, 2014
FIONA A.C. KENNEDY (Disbarment) - August 26, 2013
KARL W. KIME (Suspension) - May 8, 2014
KARL W. KIME (Withheld Suspension) - July 19, 2013
CHRISTOPHER S. LAMONT (Withheld Suspension/Probation) - November 14, 2013
CHRISTOPHER S. LAMONT (Suspension) - August 19, 2014
JOLENE C. MALONEY (Withheld Suspension/Probation) - May 8, 2014
THERESA A. MARTIN (Withheld Suspension/Probation) - June 19, 2013
MICHAEL J. McDONAGH (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - October 31, 2012
DARREN L. McKENZIE (Suspension/Withheld Suspension/Probation) - December 9, 2013
ANGELA R. MARSHALL (Public Reprimand/Withheld Suspension/Probation) - August 15, 2014
DRAKE D. MESENBRINK (Suspension) - April 11, 2013
MARK JENKINS MILLER (Suspension) - February 28, 2012
JOHN C. MITCHELL (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline)- November 15, 2013
CRAIG D. ODEGAARD (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - July 19, 2010
THOMAS K. OKAI (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - July 28, 2010
BOBBY E. PANGBURN (Disbarment) - March 21, 2013
LARRY D. PURVIANCE (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - August 7, 2013
DARREN S. ROBINS ( Suspension/Withheld Suspension/Probation) - July 27, 2011
EDGAR J. STEELE (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - August 1, 2011
D. SCOTT SUMMER (Disbarment) - October 31, 2013
DENNIS C. WEIGT (Suspension) - July 1, 2013