Month: February 2023

Attorneys for Civic Education (“ACE”) is proud to announce that three Idaho Students and their schools were selected for prizes in ACE’s second Civics Contest. Student essays explored the federal and state constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case from the standpoint of both the accused and citizens serving as jurors. The three winning entries were: Ella Barton, North Junior High School; Jesse Evelyn, Evelyn Family Homeschool; and Aunna Reynolds, Idaho Home Learning Academy. ACE would like to extend its gratitude to all the students who submitted entries and the teachers who supported them in that effort.

The ACE Civics Contest is open to Idaho middle school students. The contest was financially sponsored by the Idaho State Bar Fourth District Bar Association, whose financial contribution allowed ACE to award prizes to the top three entries along with an honorarium to the schools to be used for civics-related purposes. The Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho Court of Appeals, and the University of Idaho College of Law also provided extensive support.

One of the members of the judging panel, Donald Burnett, noted: “The students, ranging in age from 11 to 14, showed a welcome appreciation for the importance of juries under the federal and state constitutions, as well as for the right and responsibility of citizens to participate directly in their government through jury service.”

ACE would like to thank the judging panel – Justice Gregory Moeller, Don Burnett, Melissa Davlin, and Frith Stevenson – and the Fourth District Bar Association for their support of the Civics Contest. We appreciate their dedication to advancing civic education in Idaho.

ACE welcomes new members. Visit our website for more information. One of the three winning entries is published below, as well as in print in the February 2023 issue of The Advocate.

---

Preserving Liberty

By Aunna Reynolds

Imagine if one was suddenly thrown in jail only to sit there for the rest of one’s life not knowing the reason for the incarceration or having the ability to prove one’s innocence. Without the right to trial by jury, that could happen! In the United States Constitution it confirms the right to a speedy and public trial. This makes it so people can’t throw others in jail and say they will give them a trial but never do it. It also guarantees the right to a public trial meaning they can’t hold a trial in some distant location. This right protects them from others twisting whatever happened in the trial for their benefit. Clearly, trial by jury is a very important constitutional right for the accused, but it is also important for those serving as jurors.

The Idaho Constitution and the United States Constitution explain the right to trial by jury. In the United States Constitution amendment six it states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” It also affirms the right to a lawyer, witnesses, and the right to know about any accusations imposed upon one. The Idaho Constitution in section seven states, ”The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate …. trial by jury may be waived in all criminal cases, by the consent of all parties, expressed in open court.”

They both confirm the importance of a trial by jury as well as rights one has for protection

against people who abuse power. The United States Constitution lays the foundation of what

trial by jury is. The Idaho Constitution explains when, in criminal cases, a trial by jury could be waived and the necessary circumstances for that to occur.

Trial by jury is not only for the benefits of the accused, it also is beneficial for those serving as jurors. Jurors are given the ability to help each other in making sure others’ rights are protected. In being part of a jury one can participate and appreciate our laws and constitution. Jurors also have the ability to learn their rights so that if they are accused they can be prepared and have experience. Jurors can also meet other people of various backgrounds and personalities and participate in their role as a citizen.

Trial by jury is an important and influential right not only for the accused but also for the jurors. By being able to have a trial by jury, rights are protected and remain pure. Due to the many laws and rights written in the Idaho and United states Constitutions, freedom can continue on. Trial by jury is one of the most important rights that one has in preserving liberty.

Attorneys for Civic Education (“ACE”) is proud to announce that three Idaho Students and their schools were selected for prizes in ACE’s second Civics Contest. Student essays explored the federal and state constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case from the standpoint of both the accused and citizens serving as jurors. The three winning entries were: Ella Barton, North Junior High School; Jesse Evelyn, Evelyn Family Homeschool; and Aunna Reynolds, Idaho Home Learning Academy. ACE would like to extend its gratitude to all the students who submitted entries and the teachers who supported them in that effort.

The ACE Civics Contest is open to Idaho middle school students. The contest was financially sponsored by the Idaho State Bar Fourth District Bar Association, whose financial contribution allowed ACE to award prizes to the top three entries along with an honorarium to the schools to be used for civics-related purposes. The Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho Court of Appeals, and the University of Idaho College of Law also provided extensive support.

One of the members of the judging panel, Donald Burnett, noted: “The students, ranging in age from 11 to 14, showed a welcome appreciation for the importance of juries under the federal and state constitutions, as well as for the right and responsibility of citizens to participate directly in their government through jury service.”

ACE would like to thank the judging panel – Justice Gregory Moeller, Don Burnett, Melissa Davlin, and Frith Stevenson – and the Fourth District Bar Association for their support of the Civics Contest. We appreciate their dedication to advancing civic education in Idaho.

ACE welcomes new members. Visit our website for more information. One of the three winning entries is published below, as well as in print in the February 2023 issue of The Advocate.

---

George to Joe

By Jesse Evelyn

The right of trial by jury was not always enjoyed by the colonists of America. James Madison wrote the first twelve amendments after the Constitution was in place. Ten were ratified; these became the Bill of Rights. The case of J.P. Zenger in 1735 laid the groundwork for the rights of the individual citizen. Andrew Hamilton was the distinguished lawyer who claimed a fair, public, and speedy trial was a right of everyone, now found in the 6th Amendment.

The right to trial by jury in the U.S. Constitution is found in Article 3 and the 6th Amendment. Everyone has a right to an impartial, local jury in court, a speedy and public hearing, and a lawyer to defend them. The Constitution is intended to benefit the individual, not the government.

The right to trial by jury in the Idaho Constitution is found in Article 1: Section 7. Each has an inviolate right to a jury. In a criminal case, the right to trial by jury can be waived, if the accused requests it and all parties agree.

Both the U.S. and the Idaho Constitutions cite civil trials, but the Idaho Constitution has more emphasis on civil trials. The Idaho Constitution declares that a verdict could be reached with a 5/6 majority, while the U.S. Constitution denied mention of what was needed for a verdict. Six- to twelve-person juries are used in Idaho, although the U.S. Constitution does not specify jury size.

The right to trial by jury is affirmed by the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions, with few differences. Most importantly, we all have equal rights. Each person can have a fair trial, and innocent people can stay out of jail.

The accused individual is helped by a fair jury trial. What “everyone thinks” is not always right. One who is accused is not necessarily guilty; one should not go to jail if innocent. More truth comes out in a trial because a jury listens to both sides before deciding to convict. The trial must be public, so justice is seen by the court. If the individual is innocent, he cannot be tried again for the same crime. If a mistake is made, it should be in favor of life and freedom.

The citizen/juror benefits by juries in many ways. Anyone accused of a crime has a right to a jury, meaning every citizen can also have a fair trial if accused. The jurors are not allowed to hear anything outside of the courtroom that might cloud their judgment. The jury brings the voice of the people to the trial.

The accused person and the citizen/juror both benefit from the constitutional right to a jury. The most important benefit is that everyone has the right to a jury in a criminal case because many innocent people would go to jail under a selfish tyrant. The right protects both the accused and the citizen. The jury makes it fair for everyone, from King George to the average Joe.

Bibliography

Harper, Leslie. What Are Rights and Responsibilities? New York, Rosen Publishing Group, 2013.

Idaho Constitution. The Official Website of the Idaho Legislature. Internet Archive, 1890, . https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst. Accessed 10 Oct 2022.

Lee, Rex E. A Lawyer Looks at the Constitution. Provo, Brigham Young University Press, 1981.

Marcovitz, Hal. The Constitution. Philadelphia, Mason Crest Publishers, 2003.

Peterson, Christine. The U.S. Constitution. Mankato, Capstone Press, 2009.

Smith, Edward C. The Constitution of the United States. New York, Barnes and Noble, 1968.

Attorneys for Civic Education (“ACE”) is proud to announce that three Idaho Students and their schools were selected for prizes in ACE’s second Civics Contest. Student essays explored the federal and state constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case from the standpoint of both the accused and citizens serving as jurors. The three winning entries were: Ella Barton, North Junior High School; Jesse Evelyn, Evelyn Family Homeschool; and Aunna Reynolds, Idaho Home Learning Academy. ACE would like to extend its gratitude to all the students who submitted entries and the teachers who supported them in that effort.

The ACE Civics Contest is open to Idaho middle school students. The contest was financially sponsored by the Idaho State Bar Fourth District Bar Association, whose financial contribution allowed ACE to award prizes to the top three entries along with an honorarium to the schools to be used for civics-related purposes. The Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho Court of Appeals, and the University of Idaho College of Law also provided extensive support.

One of the members of the judging panel, Donald Burnett, noted: “The students, ranging in age from 11 to 14, showed a welcome appreciation for the importance of juries under the federal and state constitutions, as well as for the right and responsibility of citizens to participate directly in their government through jury service.”

ACE would like to thank the judging panel – Justice Gregory Moeller, Don Burnett, Melissa Davlin, and Frith Stevenson – and the Fourth District Bar Association for their support of the Civics Contest. We appreciate their dedication to advancing civic education in Idaho.

ACE welcomes new members. Visit our website for more information. One of the three winning entries is published below, as well as in print in the February 2023 issue of The Advocate.

---

Winning Entry: Barton

By Ella Barton, North Junior High School

The U.S. Constitution has two provisions that protect a person’s right to trial by jury in criminal cases. Under Article III, Section 2, the “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury.” This provision, enacted in 1787, protects one’s right to jury trial in criminal cases, except impeachment. Because this provision is found in Article III, the Article that deals with the power of federal courts, this provision protects one’s right to a jury trial in federal courts.

The other provision is the 6th Amendment. Under the 6th Amendment, in “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” This provision, enacted in 1791, also protects a person’s right to a jury trial in criminal cases. The provision also describes the nature of the jury, stating that it must be impartial and must come from the state and district in which the crime was committed.

The Idaho Constitution also protects a person’s right to a trial by jury. Under Article I, Section 7, the “right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; . . . A trial by jury may be waived in all criminal cases, by the consent of all parties, expressed in open court, and . . . by the consent of the parties, signified in such manner as may be prescribed by law. . . . Provided, that in cases of misdemeanor . . . , the jury shall consist of not more than six.” This provision, enacted in 1890, protects a person’s right to a jury trial in state courts. It also describes how a jury trial may be waived, and the size of the jury and how many jurors are necessary to convict a defendant.

The right to a jury trial in criminal cases is beneficial for both the accused and the jury. Jury service places the right to imprison someone in the hands of the people, as opposed to the hands of the government. The government cannot fine a person or take away a person’s belongings without the authorization of the jury, thus protecting a person’s possessions. The right to trial by jury is important to the accused because it allows the accused to have their fate be decided not by the government, but by a group of fair people, who are subject to the same laws as the accused and make decisions that are not orchestrated by the government.

The right to a jury trial is essential to liberty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his letter to A. Coray in 1823, trial by jury is “the best of all safeguards for the person, the property, and the fame of every individual.” Serving on a jury positively impacts jurors. Jury duty grants jurors a direct hand in the government and allows jurors to see the wheels of justice turning. Jury duty also educates jurors about the justice system and ties them to the Constitution.

Lindsey M. Welfley

You may notice this spot in the magazine is missing Diane Minnich’s usual Executive Director’s Report. As we get into the swing of things for the new year, there are a few changes we are implementing to improve our communication with our members. Starting this year, each issue of The Advocate will contain a rotating internal department report penned by one of our staff members. Our goal is to keep you up to date on the happenings of the Bar and Foundation, one department at a time. Our Communications Department has undergone some important changes in the last year that we’d like to outline.

Production of The Advocate

The first and perhaps most notable change is to the production of this magazine. Starting with the January 2023 issue, we have outsourced the production to a third-party publisher. While this magazine is a quality publication, which will remain the case, it is no longer the main source of communication with our members, given the availability and practicality of more immediate methods of communication.

Outsourcing this internal process will ultimately create an opportunity for us to better serve you – our members. We will now have the capacity to better utilize staff resources and expand our use of those other, more immediate forms of communication.

Social Media Strategy

As we have been reevaluating how we communicate with our members, one of these methods of more immediate communication is social media. For better or worse (we’ll let you decide), social media is certainly here to stay and the changing landscape can be difficult to navigate. Nevertheless, given the goals of our Board and the mission of the Bar, social media platforms are a great tool to communicate with our members quickly with measurable impact.

In 2023 we will be implementing an updated social media strategy that will guide our content, scheduling, and reporting. Our goal is to meet our members where you already are and capitalize on that ability to keep you informed. Watch for regular, relevant content on Facebook and LinkedIn!

Communications Internship

Another new opportunity we added in 2022 was the addition of a Communications Internship position within our department. We welcomed our first intern during the Summer 2022 semester and will continue to offer this unpaid internship each semester going forward. Our interns will assist with general communications work, magazine tasks, and provide support to the department, all while gaining real-life experience in a professional office environment. If you know of any college students local to Boise who may be interested in this opportunity during an upcoming semester, please have them contact me via email at lwelfley@isb.idaho.gov.

As we continue through 2023, we look forward to receiving any feedback you may have on how we communicate with you. It is imperative that we listen, improve, and reassess as needed – your input is always welcome.

---

By Tenielle Fordyce-Ruff

Well, the pandemic was a wild ride for me!  In the switch to stay-at-home, then pandemic pods, I was also pivoting to online teaching, then I moved to two different law schools in 18 months.  Needless to say I took a pandemic pause from this column.  My life, however, is a little less chaotic now, so I’m back.

Inspired by my pause, I settled on discussing problematic “P” words for my comeback.  Sit back and enjoy learning a little more about “P” words that might give you pause when you’re writing.

Pandemic/Epidemic/Endemic

This set made me giggle as I was researching this column.  I am certain you all understand the difference by 2023, so no more about this!

Perimeter/Periphery

Both perimeter and periphery mean an outer boundary.  Perimeter is a clear line, but periphery is more uncertain.

The perimeter of his property was a fence on the north side, but the periphery was unclear on the other sides.

Partake in/Partake of

Partake in means to take part in.  Partake of means to receive a share of something.

Participants partake in a public forum.  Children partake of cake and ice cream parties.

Partly/Partially

I love this one because it involves ambiguity and measure.  If the parts are physical or you can measure extent, use partly.  If you are referring to quality or the measure is of degree, use partially.

Downtown is full of partly finished buildings.  She is partially recovered from her severe sprain.

If either word could work in context, use partly.  It’s less ambiguous.  And remember, partially also means showing favoritism.  The estate was partially divided among the children.

Past/Passed

This is a tricky one.  After all, “the past has passed.”[i]

As an adjective, past means gone or elapsed.  As a noun it refers to time gone by or the history of something.  As a noun, passed refers to the act of passing; as a verb it means to go by or to let go without action.  So, you can reminisce about times past, but the days passed in quiet contemplation.

Patent/Latent

First, a note about pronunciation here.  Both patent and latent are pronounced with along <a> sound, so they rhyme.  If you say patent with a short <a>, you are talking about a long-term monopoly granted to an inventor.

To be patent, a thing is open and obvious.  To be latent, a thing is hidden.

Her patent talent was knowing obscure grammar; her latent talent was making excellent coffee.

Peak/Peek/Pique

Ah, the blunders this triple create.  Read this:

Her peak at the book about peaks peaked her interest.

If you were to say this out loud, it would sound fine, but not so in writing.  A peak is a mountaintop.  To peek is to take a quick look.  A pique is a fit of resentment, and to pique is to annoy or arouse.

This would be correct:

Her peek at the book about peaks piqued her interest.

Peddle/Pedal

These are pronounced the same, and that can lead to frequent misspellings.  Peddle means to sell something (I remember this because peddle and sell both have double letters.)  Pedal means to pump with the foot.

Here’s some fun (somewhat obscure) etymology:  one piano pedal softens sounds, so to soft-pedal is to lower the intensity.  This phrase is often misspelled as soft-peddle.

Permit/Allow

While frequently used as synonyms, permit and allow have different connotations.

If you permit something, you give it your approval.  To allow something doesn’t connote approval.

The judge overruled the objection and permitted the question.  Hearing no objections, the judge allowed the question.

Practical/Practicable

Another set of frequently misused adjectives.  Practical means realistic (not just theoretical) or advantageous.  Practicable means feasible.

Paying so much more for such little benefit isn’t practical.  The budget increase made hiring another associate practicable.

Precede/Proceed

The verb forms of precede/proceed are switched often and precede is frequently misspelled as preceed.

Precede means to go before in order or rank.  Proceed means to move forward or to carry on.

She preceded him through the door.  After pausing for a moment to survey the room, she proceeded to sit in a corner chair.

Proceeds (the noun) is something that results or accrues.  The proceeds of the stock sale were divided partly, with some reinvested.

Premise/Premises

Premise refers to logic; it’s a proposition from which a conclusion can be drawn.  Remember this “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal”?  All men are mortal and Socrates is a man are the major and minor premise in this syllogism.  In fact, we attorneys write using premises all the time.

But, premises (always plural) refers to the space inside the boundaries of a property.  The polite way to tell someone to stay off your lawn is to ask them to leave the premises.

Presently/Currently/Momentarily

While many of us use these terms interchangeably, they don’t mean precisely the same thing.  Presently can mean immediately or soon, but modern usage also includes the meaning of now.  Currently means now.  Momentarily means lasting for a moment, but it also has come to mean in a moment.

To avoid the ambiguity that imprecise use of these terms can bring, write around them. For instance, use soon or now instead of presently.  Use, in a moment instead of momentarily.  After all, telling your client that court is starting presently when you mean now but they hear soon wouldn’t be good.

Conclusion

I am so happy to be back after a pandemic pause.  The peace of writing for The Advocate again is phenomenal. 

Source note:  The inspiration for this is from Bryan A. Garner, The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style 259-62 (2d ed. 2006).

---

---

[i] Bryan A. Garner, The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style 260 (2d ed. 2006).

By Laird B. Stone, Idaho State Bar President

The incoming President of the Idaho State Bar.  Wow, an impressive title to some but in reality it gives no more “power” or “importance” than already exists as part of the five-member Board of Commissioners that oversees the workings of the Idaho State Bar.

I recently learned from both written and oral comments given by various Bar members attending the Road Show meetings, some questions exist as to what the Idaho State Bar and Board of Commissioners do.

The easiest answer is to direct you to the Bar’s mission statement:

The mission of the Idaho State Bar is to administer granting the privilege to practice law in Idaho; to control and regulate the legal profession; to protect the public from the unauthorized practice of law and from the unprofessional conduct by members of the Bar; to promote high standards of professional conduct; and to aid in the advancement of the administration of justice.

Knowing the mission, however, is only part of the answer – to carry it out and improve upon it is a duty of the Bar.  To do so, a board needs a plan with checkpoints and a method to review and quantify results to determine whether the mission is being fulfilled.  The board had not done an in-depth strategic planning session for a number of years.  In September of 2022, the commission under the leadership of Kristin Bjorkman had a strategic planning retreat.  Out of that meeting came the following:

Strategic Goal #1 – Advance Bar Member Engagement, Interaction, and the Bar’s Understanding of Bar Members

• Advance Member Engagement
  • Benchmark Current Member Participation Levels; Expand
  • Identify one targeted constituency group per year for enhanced engagement focus and attention

• Advance Bar Interaction with Members
  • Take bar events to members; engage in “listening” events
  • Enhance Commissioner Engagements with Bar Districts
  • Facilitate Partnership Opportunities with Local and Specialty Bars

• Better Understand Bar Member Needs
  • Conduct biennial bar member survey
  • Focus on Rural Lawyer Support and Advancement

Strategic Goal #2 – Advance Initiatives Designed to Build a Better Profession

• Support Well-Being Initiatives to Enhance the Professional Satisfaction of Legal Professionals
  • Expand Education on Well-Being Topics
  • Launch a Well-Being Committee
  • Include Wellness Questions on Bar Survey

• Advance the Inclusivity, Diversity and Sense of Belonging within the Legal Community
  • Continue to Gather and Publish Demographic Data
  • Enhance Pathways for Underrepresented Groups to Serve and Engage in Bar Activities

• Continue to Educate the Bar and Public on the Bar’s Impact
  • Member Benefit Promotion
  • Regulatory Impact/Value
  • Bar Leadership in Public-Facing Programs

At the time that I write this, the Board has not yet met for our January meeting during which we will finalize these goals.  After our January meeting, our next step will be the implementation of achieving these goals.  To help with that implementation, the following checklist[i] compiled by the Association of Community College Trustees may act as a framework from which to base our focus:

• Represent the Community (Bar Members)
  • Know community needs and trends
  • Link with the community
  • Seek out and integrate multiple perspectives when making policy decisions
  • Debate and discuss issues in public (Road Show)
  • Serve the public good

• Act as a Unit
  • Integrate multiple perspectives into board decision-making
  • Speak with one voice; support the decision of the board once it is made
  • Recognize that power rests with the board, not individual commissioners

• Set the Policy Direction
  • Be proactive, visionary, and future-oriented
  • Focus on community needs and trends
  • Establish the vision, mission, and broad institutional goals as policy

• Board-CEO Relations
  • Select and retain the best CEO possible
  • Define clear parameters and expectations for performance
  • Conduct periodic evaluations; provide honest and constructive feedback
  • Support the CEO

• Define Standards for Bar Operations
  • Set policy standards for high quality programs
  • Adopt policies that ensure high expectations
  • Adopt fiscal policies that require wise and prudent use of funds
  • Adopt personnel policies that attract and retain high quality personnel and that ensure fair treatment

• Monitor Instructional Performance
  • Monitor progress toward goals
  • Monitor adherence to operation policies
  • Use pre-established criteria for monitoring
  • Have a timetable for reports

• Create a Positive Climate
  • Model a commitment to the Bar
  • Focus on outcomes
  • Support risk-taking and professional growth
  • Seek consultation in developing of policy
  • Be ethical; act with integrity

• Support and Be Advocates for the Institution
  • Promote the Bar in the community
  • Advocate the needs of the Bar with government officials
  • Support the foundation and fundraising efforts

• Lead as an Educated Team
  • Engage in ongoing learning about board roles and responsibilities
  • Be curious and inclusive
  • Be positive, supportive, and respectful

This is a dynamic plan, and it needs to be reviewed and revised as the Bar’s needs and board members change.

The constants are the mission statement and the staff’s excellent work in carrying that forward through the plan.

The results must be measured both subjectively and objectively.  The surveys, both formal and informal, used by the Bar are some of the tools to be used to measure the progress towards the goals.

The Board’s role as seen from the checklist is to develop policy and practices that assist the staff in the implementation of the strategic plan.  The staff has the responsibility of the daily grind.  The Board has the responsibility to ensure the staff has the tools and the backing of the Board to do their work.  The Board also has the responsibility to oversee that the work is being done in a fiscally responsible manner.

To succeed, a Board must have a strategic plan and set goals to meet the elements of the plan.  The obvious purpose to be to carry out the mission of the organization.  This is not a static objective but one a Board adjusts over time as the goals are achieved or the implementation of the plan needs to be modified to reach the enumerated goals.

An excellent resource in fulfilling a mission and achieving a goal is a book entitled “The Four Disciplines of Execution” by Chris McChesney, Sean Covoy, Jim Huling (2012).  As discussed in this book, the “readers’” Board’s responsibility is to develop the strategy and help with the ability to execute.  The actual work falls to the staff.  We as the board need to ensure there is clarity in the plans and a policy in place that allows the execution thereof, and then get out of the way.

Because the Board bears the ultimate responsibility, it is not a mere rubber stamp, but our active group of five, very professional, moral individuals who care deeply for the integrity of our profession.  This includes speaking up when our stated mission is questioned and/or attacked.  Being willing to listen to all sides and making decision that carry out this mission so that as a Board we can accomplish our goals and make the Bar a dynamic, growing, professional organization.

As for implementation, well it has been going on for years under the capable direction of our director and staff.

A list of the action groups and committees that the Board and Bar office have created over the years and the history of the State Bar run several pages and is available by request from the Bar office.

The best reason for strategic planning and implementation is, as one of the great philosophers said, “You’ve got to be very careful if you do not know where you are going, because you might not get there.”[ii]

This is a brief explanation of what the commissioners are working on and hopefully has not only answered some of the questions that we got from the Road Show but caused some interest to arise in participating in Bar activities.

See you in Boise at the Annual Meeting this July.

---

---

[i]. “Trusteeship in Community Colleges.” by Cindra J. Smith, (Association of Community College Trustees).

[ii]. Yogi Berra.

By Jennifer M. Schindele

Last October, Magistrate Judge Mick Hodges, with support from the Idaho Pro Bono Commission and Idaho Supreme Court, joined attorneys and judges around the state to encourage participation in pro bono work. The Practice with Purpose tour stopped in each judicial district gathering attorneys together to discuss pro bono opportunities and the Emeritus limited license.

From Coeur d’Alene to Idaho Falls, Judge Hodges and several others described their dedication to pro bono work. The presentation highlighted Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 6.1 and provided information to attorneys about a limited license in Idaho called Emeritus. Currently, there are 13 attorneys in Idaho with an Emeritus limited license. For those attorneys who are nearing retirement but want to continue to practice with purpose, this opportunity is for you!

What is an Emeritus Limited License?

In Idaho, an attorney who is or had been actively licensed to practice law in any state within the past five years can apply for an Emeritus Attorney Limited License.[i] The limited license allows attorneys to practice law for an approved legal service organization as long as they do not ask for or receive compensation for their legal services.[ii] To date, the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program (“IVLP”) and Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc. have both been approved by the Idaho Supreme Court as a Legal Assistance Organization.

How do I apply?

To apply for Emeritus status, an attorney must submit to the Idaho State Bar (“ISB”) Admissions Department a sworn statement verifying that the attorney is or had been actively licensed to practice law within the five years preceding the application, the attorney will perform legal services without asking for or receiving compensation, the attorney will abide by the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct and all other laws and rules governing lawyers admitted to the ISB, and finally, that the attorney submits to the jurisdiction of the Idaho Supreme Court and the ISB for disciplinary purposes.[iii] In addition to the sworn statement, the attorney must have the Approved Legal Assistance Organization provide written confirmation directly to the ISB Admissions Department that the attorney is associated with the approved organization.[iv]

If the attorney is or had been actively licensed in Idaho, the ISB will verify the information internally. If, however, the attorney is or had been actively licensed in another state, the attorney must also submit to the Admissions Department a Certificate of Good Standing from the state in which the attorney was licensed indicating that the attorney meets the requirements of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules.[v]

What are the licensing requirements for an Emeritus attorney?

Once an attorney has received the Emeritus limited license, the licensing requirements are minimal. The attorney must complete at least three continuing legal education credit hours each year. If the attorney is associated with the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program, the CLEs are offered free of charge.  Additionally, the attorney must pay an annual license fee which is currently $150.[vi]

What type of legal services can I provide with an Emeritus limited license?

An Emeritus attorney may appear in any court or before an administrative tribunal, mediator, or arbitrator in Idaho as long the attorney is performing pro bono work on behalf of an Approved Legal Assistance Organization.[vii] Additionally, an attorney can prepare pleadings and other documents to be filed in any court in any matter in which the Emeritus Attorney is involved.[viii]  Finally, the attorney can render legal advice and perform other appropriate legal services on behalf of a client of an approved organization.[ix]

Do I need to have malpractice insurance?

Yes. However, if an attorney is performing pro bono legal service under the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program, malpractice insurance is provided. The Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program carries malpractice insurance for all attorneys when practicing law on behalf of an IVLP client.

For more information about how to apply for an Emeritus limited license or about how to get involved with pro bono work, contact Jennifer Schindele, Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program Director, at jschindele@isb.idaho.gov.

---

---

[i] Idaho Bar Commission Rule 228(b).

[ii] I.B.C.R. 228(c) and 228(e).

[iii] https://isb.idaho.gov/admissions/emeritus-limited-license/.

[iv] https://isb.idaho.gov/admissions/emeritus-limited-license/.

[v] I.B.C.R. 228(f)(3).

[vi] I.B.C.R. 304.

[vii] I.B.C.R. 228(d)(1)(A).

[viii] I.B.C.R. 228(d)(1)(B).

[ix] I.B.C.R. 228(d)(1)(C).