Author: Lindsey Welfley

By Marvin K. Smith and Austin T. Strobel

Struggles with serious mental illness can present challenging circumstances for an individual and those around them. When that challenge rises to the level of a grave disability, or rises to the level of a danger that threatens the life of the ill friend or family member or others, it can be difficult to know where to turn for help. Fortunately, the Idaho Legislature has provided a humane and comprehensive means to “press pause” in these types of severe circumstances through the adoption of the involuntary mental health hold process.

This article serves as a primer of sorts on that process, exploring first the basics of Idaho’s statutory scheme, including the different types of mental health holds, the substantive threshold that needs to be met for an involuntary mental health hold to be placed, and the types of individuals capable of placing a patient on an involuntary hold. Next, this article takes a look at the key definitions in the mental health hold statute and a key omission from those definitions. Lastly, this article explores a few difficult scenarios that providers may need to address in the mental health hold context – a context where the decision of whether or not to place an involuntary mental health hold can have significant consequences for both patient and provider alike.

The Idaho Legislature has adopted two types of involuntary mental health holds: the traditional 24-hour mental health hold set forth in Idaho Code § 66-326, and the 72-hour administrative hold set forth in Idaho Code § 66-320. Each is addressed in turn in the following.

Idaho Code § 66-326—24 Hour Mental Health Hold

A 24-hour mental health hold without a court order can be initiated by a peace officer (in this scenario, the patient is taken into custody and placed in the hospital or mental health facility) or by a physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse (in this scenario, the patient is already at the hospital).[i] The party initiating the mental health hold must have reason to believe that the person is either gravely disabled due to mental illness or the patient’s continued liberty poses an imminent danger to that person or others as evidenced by a threat of substantial physical harm.[ii] The statute does not specifically require that the detention need occur at a mental health facility, however, the statute specifically lays out that detention must not occur in a non-medical unit used for the detention of individuals charged with or convicted of penal offenses.[iii]

Evidence supporting the claim of grave disability due to mental illness or imminent danger must be presented to a court within 24 hours from the time the individual was placed in custody or detained. If the court finds either grave disability or imminent danger, then the court will enter a temporary custody order and order an examination by a designated examiner of the person in custody to be performed within 24 hours of the temporary order being issued. The designated examiner must then report findings to the court within 24 hours of the examination. If the designated examiner finds either grave disability due to mental illness or imminent danger, then the prosecuting attorney has 24 hours from the time of the examination to file a petition for detention pending commitment proceedings. If the prosecuting attorney makes no filing within 24 hours, the patient can leave the facility.

Idaho Code § 66-320—72 Hour Administrative Hold

In addition to the traditional involuntary hold process described previously, the Idaho Legislature has adopted a 72-hour administrative hold process. A 72-hour administrative hold on a mental health patient is available if: (1) the patient is a voluntary patient under § 66-318 and; (2) the patient is seeking to leave the facility by a request in writing. In that event, if the director of the facility determines that the patient should remain hospitalized, the patient may be detained up to three days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) for the purpose of an examination by a designated examiner and filing of an application for continued care and treatment (commitment).[iv]

Though technically available, it is difficult to envision a circumstance – particularly in Idaho’s more populated areas served by hospitals with inpatient mental health capabilities – where a 72-hour administrative hold would be used rather than the traditional 24-hour involuntary mental health hold.  Indeed, it adds weight and credibility to the need for a hold when it is placed by a mental health professional following a psychiatric evaluation of the patient. Moreover, in a circumstance where a mental health professional has already determined that the hold criteria have not been met, it seems unlikely that a facility director would, in essence, “overrule” the judgment of an educated and trained professional and place an administrative hold.

One possible exception is in Idaho’s more rural areas where inpatient mental health services are not always readily available.  In those circumstances, the administrative hold is a useful tool because a facility director’s initial placement of an administrative hold may be needed to allow time for a mental health professional to arrive and perform a psychiatric evaluation of the patient.

Key Definitions and Critical Omission

Any provider (or attorney representing that provider) evaluating a patient for the involuntary mental health hold criteria previously set forth should be familiar with the following key definitions in Idaho’s mental health hold statute:

“Gravely disabled” means the patient is unable to provide for basic personal needs (food, clothing, shelter) or lacks insight into the need for treatment and unwillingness to comply with treatment that is likely to lead to an inability to provide for basic needs.[v]

A “designated examiner” is defined as “a psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric nurse, or social worker and such other mental health professionals as may be designated in accordance with rules promulgated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code, by the department of health and welfare. Any person designated by the department director will be specially qualified by training and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental or mentally related illnesses or conditions.”[vi]

“Mentally ill” means a person who, as a result of a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or memory, which grossly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize and adapt to reality, requires care and treatment at a facility or through outpatient treatment.[vii]

Notably absent from the definitions set forth in the statute is any definition of “imminent” or “imminent danger.” As discussed next, this lack of statutory guidance on this critical element is a problem for both patients and providers alike and raises important questions affecting not only the patient’s health, safety, and autonomy, but public health and safety. Idaho’s appellate case law does not fill this gap, either.

Practical Issues: Difficulties in Certain Cases and Statutory Immunity

One problem a provider may face in determining whether statutory mental health hold criteria have been met is determining whether a patient is an “imminent” danger to themselves or others. As indicated above, Idaho’s involuntary hold statute lacks any definition for “imminent” or “imminent danger” – a key term in evaluating whether statutory hold criteria have been met. As an illustration, say a provider determines that a patient’s current condition does not present a threat to the patient or others in the next 0 to 24 hours, but that days after a patient’s release the patient’s condition deteriorates such that at some point in the next few days or weeks, the patient presents a threat of serious bodily harm to themselves or others. In other words, does a danger rise to the level of “imminent” if the perceived danger is a few days or weeks away? Without further clarification from the legislature, this judgment is left to the provider and can have significant consequences for the patient, provider, and facility.[viii]

Alcohol and substance abuse can also create difficulties for providers evaluating patients with mental illness. In fact, Idaho prohibits the placement of a hold on a patient who is “impaired by chronic alcoholism or drug abuse.”[ix] Based on this language, some Idaho providers mistakenly believe that they are not able to place a hold on intoxicated patients. This interpretation is incorrect, as the statute recognizes that alcoholism and serious mental illness often go hand in hand and clarifies that a hold due to alcoholism is inappropriate “unless in addition to such condition, such person is mentally ill.”[x] Thus, an intoxicated person who is simultaneously gravely disabled or an imminent threat to themselves or others may be appropriately held involuntarily under Idaho’s mental health hold process.

As a backstop safe harbor – likely in light of the inherent difficulties in evaluating and diagnosing mental health issues – the Idaho Legislature has provided for statutory immunity for providers and other individuals placing (or failing to place) involuntary mental health holds, so long as the procedures of the Idaho hold statute were performed “in good faith and without gross negligence.”[xi]

Conclusion

Though minor legislative revisions can be made to improve the real-world application of Idaho’s mental health hold framework, the involuntary mental health hold process is a helpful tool that strikes the appropriate balance between patient autonomy and self-determination and patient (and public) health and safety in a difficult area of health care law.

---

---

[i] I.C. § 66-326(1).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] I.C. § 66-320.

[v] I.C.§ 66-317(13).

[vi] I.C. § 66-317(5).

[vii] I.C. § 66-317(12).

[viii] Though clarification from the legislature on the definition of “imminent” would be helpful, the Webster’s Dictionary definition of “imminent” is highly suggestive of only a short period of time (hours as opposed to days), indicating that “imminent” means “ready to take place” or “happening soon.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imminent.

[ix] I.C. § 66-329(13)(a).

[x] Id.

[xi] I.C. § 66-341.

By Kurt D. Holzer

“Colleagues are a wonderful thing – but mentors, that’s where the real work gets done.” — Junot Diaz

As I stride toward the well of the court to face the jury and prepare to speak of my client’s cause, I wonder: “These 12 strangers I’ve spent days in front of, do they get it?  That judge whose every ruling seemed the opposite of what I expected, does she get it?  The law clerk in the judge’s ear, does he get it?  Opposing counsel and her client, do they get it? Does my client even understand?”

This moment in trial often leaves me feeling alone.

If they do not get it, I have no one to blame but myself.

I wandered forth from law school ignorant of my ignorance. I only knew that I wanted to try cases.  And the biggest reason I have had any moments of success doing so is other Idaho lawyers.

This article is primarily for you recently, and soon to be, minted attorneys.  I implore you to see in that amazing technological innovation of the 19^th Century, the telephone, the unmatched opportunity it offers for your professional development.

As an aside, thank you to the many lawyers who have responded to my call out of the blue asking for thoughts or insights on challenges I have faced for my clients. The truths I talk to a jury about are truths I have learned to speak with guidance from all of you.

You experienced lawyers keep taking those young lawyer’s calls.  Mentoring comes in many forms. Providing your insight into a discreet question from a young lawyer you have never met or may have met in passing but don’t recall is one.

Of course, as I’ve reached mid- (or maybe late-mid) career, I can see my development that came from seminars, journal articles, and my own experiences.  But the insight and guidance from more experienced practitioners, direct mentoring, that’s the stuff on which legal careers are most solidly built. It’s where the real work was done.

Ultimately, such guidance requires a person to ask for help. I am lucky enough to have lots of wisdom in other lawyers whose office doors are feet away in the hallways of my firm. And that’s one of the true joys of practice. Still though, after nearly 30 years as a trial lawyer, I pick up the phone to call other attorneys to seek advice.

There are lawyers who believe they need no help.  Those lawyers are somehow always certain of the answers they reach on their own, or maybe are just embarrassed to seek the insights of others.  Too frequently, I see the mistakes those lawyers make because they did not use the collective wisdom available to all of us.

Though it feels like it sometimes, losing a case is no sin. And in the non-litigation practice sometimes the preferred outcome is not achieved.  However, losing or failing because you did not take the few moments to supplement your efforts with guidance from a fellow member you believed would have insight – that is a great sin.

Traveling the State with my fellow Commissioners we hear a constant refrain: “This is a great Bar.”   We Idaho attorneys enjoy a level of collegiality and collaboration, even in serious, high-heat conflicts, that at times stuns friends of mine who practice elsewhere.

And those Bar members are at your fingertips.  The telephone on your desk (or in your pocket) provides access to a vast universe of accessible knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

And while it is often more important for newly minted lawyers, those who don’t know what they don’t know, this wisdom is there for all of us.

Whether driven to avoid reliance on others because of hubris, fear, or laziness, the outcome for the lawyers who don’t make the call is the same.   A client left without the best advocate she can have.

I cannot count how many times I have called upon fellow Idaho attorneys with no connection to the matter on which I was working for help.  Grey haired-eminences, mid-career lawyers in the trenches, and more recently minted members all have helped me help clients.

On occasion, my phone rings with another bar member asking me my thoughts on a quandary they face, a legal issue or a procedural matter.  Those conversations tend to be a bright point in my day.   It’s one of the things that make being a member of this profession so dang satisfying.

The wisdom of experience, the wisdom of analysis, the wisdom of insight —you find it all there in our collective. And as members of the Idaho State Bar it is there for the asking.  That person with experience in your area of law who you met at the conference or who is spoken of effusively and always with only accolades, she’ll have insight. And here in Idaho, almost invariably, she will answer your call and offer some direction.

Before the first words of the closing to that jury escape my lips, I find comfort arising from the companionship, camaraderie, and connection we Idaho lawyers experience.  The sense of isolation is lessened by the knowledge that in me is the wisdom of many who helped me be ready to be the voice for my client.  Those many included fellow members of the Idaho State Bar who have been on the other end of that amazing telephone.

---

By Brent T. Wilson

Barring a plea deal, which seems unlikely, Elizabeth Holmes, the founder and CEO of failed blood testing company Theranos, and president/COO Ramesh Balwani are scheduled for trial on multiple counts of criminal fraud in August 2020. If convicted, each faces up to 20 years in prison. This is in addition to actions already taken by the SEC against Theranos and Holmes, as well as class action lawsuits by investors and patients.

The media has reported extensively about Holmes and the downfall of Theranos, which was at one point valued at $9 billion. John Carreyrou’s best seller Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup covers the whole sordid tale. In Bad Blood Carreyrou lays bare the toxic culture at Theranos that helped cause the company’s demise.

This article is not about the gripping tale of deception, manipulation, and intimidation fostered by Holmes and Balwani (and other bizarre facts, such as Holmes communicating in a fake deep voice for years after starting Theranos) – Carreyrou, ABC’s Rebecca Jarvis in the podcast The Dropout, and many other talented journalists have thoroughly covered those topics. The focus here is on Theranos’s board of directors and their failure to govern the compliance function, which ultimately helped contribute to the company’s downfall – and what the board should have done instead. Any statements of fact about Theranos in this article are taken from Carreyrou’s and Jarvis’s reporting.

Background: Theranos and Its Board of Directors

At age 19 and after only two semesters of chemical engineering classes at Stanford, Holmes dropped out to start Theranos, a privately held for-profit entity. Holmes, an aspiring billionaire, claimed she feared needles. The basic idea was to create a miniature laboratory that could perform blood tests using only a drop or two of blood pricked from a finger. Holmes’s grand vision was to revolutionize blood testing and place these miniature labs in homes across the world. Easy access to affordable and reliable blood testing would help with early detection and preventative medicine.

Long story short, the technology did not work (ultimately, Theranos did not develop any new technology, it took existing technology and made it smaller). Holmes, who by all accounts is wildly intelligent and charismatic, was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for her idea, despite having no scientific or medical training. Turns out, Holmes sold the company to investors through obfuscation and deception. When it became clear Holmes was willing to endanger patients by using questionable blood testing processes, some employees turned on Holmes and became whistleblowers.

It is important to be clear on a few things about the board’s role in the company’s failure. First, no board member is facing prosecution or even the threat of indictment. None of them participated in the fraud. They, like almost everyone else, were duped. Second, Holmes maintained complete control of the board and did not tolerate dissent. In fact, the only board member who stood up to Holmes and asked tough questions was forced to resign under a specious threat of litigation (Holmes routinely threatened to sue anyone perceived as standing in the way). So it is not clear that additional governance activity by Theranos’s board would have demonstrably prevented the course of events for the company.

There is no indication that any other board member, however, was even interested in asking questions or challenging Holmes. Each Theranos board member was highly accomplished, but none of them had any substantial scientific or health care industry experience. Holmes recruited famous diplomats, statesmen, and political and military leaders with significant connections for a reason, namely to work those connections, raise funds, and gain attention. Theranos’s board was window dressing. From a compliance perspective, Theranos is a good case study.

The Board’s Role in Compliance Oversight and Potential Liability

Directors are responsible for oversight of a company’s compliance function. Foremost, whether in a for-profit or non-profit entity, directors are fiduciaries.[i] As such, directors are responsible for ensuring a company’s activities comply with applicable industry, legal, and regulatory frameworks, the broad protections of the business judgment rule notwithstanding. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines set out the required elements of an effective compliance program, including the board’s role: “the organization’s governing authority shall be knowledgeable about the content and operation of the compliance and ethics program and shall exercise reasonable oversight with respect to the implementation and effectiveness of the compliance and ethics program.”[ii]

Under the seminal In re Caremark International, Inc. case, a breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty is established by evidence that the directors knew or should have known compliance violations were occurring and took no preventative or remedial steps.[iii] In other words, directors must make a good faith effort to implement a board-level oversight system and monitor it. Proving such a failure is difficult – e.g., it requires evidence of a sustained or systematic failure to exercise oversight, such as “an utter failure to attempt to assure a reasonable information and reporting system exists.”[iv]

The recent Delaware decision in Marchand v. Barnhill, a case involving Blue Bell Creameries, paints a roadmap for how to establish this type of “utter failure.” Shareholders derivatively sued the board and executives for losses after the company failed to respond to a listeria outbreak in several factories, which caused the deaths of three customers.[v] Plaintiffs survived a motion to dismiss because their complaint included sufficient inferences that the board had not undertaken any effort to ensure it was informed about the compliance issues critical to the company’s operations.

Blue Bell does one thing: it makes ice cream. Blue Bell’s board, however, had no committee to address food safety issues, no processes or protocols for management to update it about food safety practices or risks, no regular schedule for considering food safety risks inherent to the industry, there was no evidence management notified the board of red or yellow flags from regulators about reported listeria problems, and there was a complete lack of any discussions about food safety in board meeting minutes – even during the time of the listeria outbreak.

Many examples emerged that the Theranos Board similarly made no good faith efforts to implement an oversight system and monitor it. Though Holmes advertised Theranos as a Silicon Valley technology startup, at its core Theranos was a blood testing company with a diagnostic laboratory subject to the same regulatory compliance requirements as any other lab. Notwithstanding, Theranos, at Holmes’s or Balwani’s direction, flouted regulatory requirements. The board had no system in place to monitor Theranos’s compliance with laboratory regulations or identify any of these problems.

For example, with regard to its proprietary lab equipment Theranos could not run most blood tests on its miniaturized equipment, so it hacked commercial analyzers, diluted small finger prick samples, and ran them on the hacked commercial machines, which negatively impacted accuracy. Theranos also segregated its proprietary miniature lab equipment from the commercial analyzers it used to run most of its blood tests. When state regulators conducted inspections of the lab, Theranos only showed the inspectors the lab with the conventional commercial analyzers. Finally, Theranos cheated on proficiency testing, a regulatory and accreditation required exercise aimed at identifying inaccurate blood testing, by testing proficiency samples on commercial analyzers rather than on Theranos’s proprietary lab equipment.

In operating its lab, Theranos went months without a director, which violated licensure requirements. When Theranos eventually appointed a lab director, it was a dermatologist who was not actually qualified to run a clinical laboratory and was mostly an absent figurehead. Theranos also set up protocols that allowed unlicensed personnel to conduct quality control procedures and process patient samples in the lab. Balwani regularly fired employees who dared question him. One victim included a microbiologist who pushed for industry standard and regulatory required environmental health and safety protections in the lab.

With regard to regulators, Holmes created an illusion that Theranos cooperated with the FDA and the FDA approved its blood testing processes. In fact, the FDA had approved only a few of Theranos’s tests (Theranos skirted FDA oversight for the most part). When the FDA inspected the lab, it determined that Theranos’s “nanotainer” for collecting blood from finger pricks was an uncleared medical device and prohibited Theranos from using it.

Perhaps most egregiously, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) conducted a surprise inspection of the lab in September 2015 and found serious deficiencies with Theranos’s proprietary lab equipment and lab operations. CMS found that unqualified personnel were allowed to handle patient blood samples, blood was stored at the wrong temperatures, the presence of expired reagents (solutions used for blood testing), and that Theranos failed to notify patients about flawed test results. CMS required Theranos to void almost one million blood test results run on its proprietary equipment. In other words, Theranos’s propriety blood testing equipment was basically useless. In July 2016, CMS banned Holmes and Theranos from running a blood testing lab.

There are additional examples of serious compliance-like concerns the board should have addressed, but did not. For example, not one health care venture capital firm invested in Theranos, but board members never questioned that fact. The board approved hiring Balwani as president and COO despite having no blood testing, laboratory, or medical industry experience (as a salacious aside, Holmes never disclosed to the board that she and Balwani were dating and living together).

In March 2008, two high-level employees approached the board chair with evidence Holmes misled the board about the effectiveness of Theranos’s blood testing technology and revenue projections. Faced with this information, the Board decided to remove Holmes as CEO. Holmes convinced them to change their minds. Less than two weeks later Holmes fired both employees. Not one board member looked into the firing of two high-level employees who only a few weeks earlier provided evidence that had convinced them to remove Holmes.

Similarly, in November 2006 Holmes faked successful results of a blood test on Theranos’s proprietary mini device in a demonstration to a multi-national pharmaceutical company. Holmes did this routinely when demonstrating the devices to potential investors and pharma companies. When Theranos’s CFO learned about this practice and strongly objected, Holmes fired him. No board member seemed concerned a C-suite level employee was suddenly gone, or asked why.

How Can a Board Satisfy its Fiduciary Duty to Oversee Compliance?

The pattern of inaction of the Theranos board is similar to the Blue Bell case. So what should a board of directors do to oversee compliance? The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services has published practical guidance for boards of health care companies, and the Blue Bell case also provides important guidance. [vi] Effective board actions for compliance oversight may include the following.

Establish Board-Level Systems for Oversight. Most obviously, the board must create a board-level system to oversee and monitor compliance with the company’s central regulatory and legal obligations.

Reporting to the Board. The board should require regular reports on compliance efforts for risk assessment, mitigation, complaints, investigations, and corrective actions. Management should report on critical operations issues to the board, particularly on yellow or red flag concerns (e.g., whistleblower complaints, regulator actions). Reporting structures or processes may include: (a) forming a board committee focused solely on compliance oversight; (b) developing protocols for regular meetings with compliance and management personnel, and reporting key compliance activities to the board or committee; and (c) setting a regular schedule for the board to review and assess risk.

Minutes. Board minutes should reflect efforts to establish, implement, and continually monitor key compliance matters, and should include management reports on risks and compliance issues.

Board Education. Provide annual (at least) education to board members on their duties regarding compliance oversight and on the substantive regulatory areas the board is responsible for overseeing. This is especially important in health care, where the regulatory landscape changes quickly and human safety is a risk.

Board Member Expertise. Ensure board composition includes necessary expertise, or the board has access to necessary expertise. This will assist the board with risk identification, assessment, and knowing which questions to ask company management.

Culture Development. The board should put management on notice that it takes compliance seriously and expects compliance accountability across the organization. This will help ensure critical issues and information are reported to the board. Education efforts and properly staffing the board may help foster a strong culture for compliance.

Conclusion

The ultimately $9 billion Theranos fraud demonstrates a corporate board’s vital role in compliance oversight. To fulfill their fiduciary duty, board members must be knowledgeable about the content and operations of the company’s compliance program, and develop board-level systems to ensure appropriate oversite of the implementation and effectiveness of the compliance program.

---

---

[i] See, e.g., Idaho Code §§ 30-29-830, 30-30-618.

[ii] United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“USSG”), §8B2.1(b)(2)(A) (Nov. 2018)

[iii] See In re Caremark Int’l Inc. Deriv. Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996).

[iv] Id.

[v] Marchand v. Barnhill, 212 A.3d 805 (Del. 2019).

[vi] See Caremark Liability for Regulatory Compliance Oversight, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, Gail Weinstein, Warren S. de Weid, and Philip Richter (July 8, 2019) (available at https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/07/08/caremark-liability-for-regulatory-compliance-oversight/#respond) and Practical Guidance for Health Care Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (April 20, 2015) (available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/compliance/compliance-guidance/docs/Practical-Guidance-for-Health-Care-Boards-on-Compliance-Oversight.pdf).

By Anne-Marie Fulfer

Public service is emphasized throughout a lawyer’s career through a variety of communications, including CLEs, meetings, columns, and rules. Here are two excerpts from the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct:

PREAMBLE: A LAWYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES [6] … As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education.

6.1 Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least fifty (50) hours of pro bono legal services per year to persons of limited means or to charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations.

When I was growing up, among the values my parents and grandmother instilled in me were public service and volunteering. I volunteered through church groups, school opportunities, and 4-H. In more recent years, I have served as a parent volunteer at my children’s schools, on my community’s youth hockey board, and as a Rotarian.

I have met many amazing volunteers, doing many amazing things through the years, but today I am focusing on two amazing volunteer opportunities that only lawyers have: first, to render pro bono legal services to persons of limited means, and second, to mentor law students by bringing them on to your pro bono cases.

Connecting to a pro bono case/client is easy! The Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program and Idaho Legal Aid Services jointly fund the Idaho Pro Bono Opportunities Website at www.idahoprobono.org  providing “a free and convenient way for attorneys in Idaho to find and volunteer for pro bono opportunities.”  Once an attorney activates their account, they can set up filters for types of pro bono opportunities by legal and geographic areas, and the system sends alerts as opportunities arise.

You are not limited to the cases listed on the IVLP website. If you have been considering representing an existing client pro bono, they may be eligible to participate through IVLP. They can apply to IVLP by completing the form at this site: https://laserfiche.isb.idaho.gov/Forms/IVLP-Application. You can let IVLP know that a potential client will be applying, and IVLP will let you know when they have set up the case.

If you need help with researching an issue or writing a memorandum, you can contact one of our two law schools to request a law student to assist you. The University of Idaho and Concordia University require their students to complete 50 hours of attorney-supervised pro bono work and encourage them to complete more than the 50-hour minimum, with success; students at U of I and Concordia, working with attorneys, completed in excess of  20,300 hours in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 academic years.

The nuts and bolts legal work that students complete with attorneys is invaluable in assisting them in becoming professionals who are better prepared to enter the legal profession. And, the collaboration can create a lasting mentor-mentee relationship that enriches both parties, as well as the legal profession. If you are not able to take on a pro bono case, please remember the Idaho Law Foundation’s Access to Justice Idaho (AJI) Campaign. Idaho is one of only two states that does not provide funding for civil legal aid, so AJI raises funds for DisAbility Rights Idaho, Idaho Legal Aid Services, and the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program. You can give today at https://isb.idaho.gov/ilf/access-to-justice/.

---

For more information on how to engage with law students to work on your pro bono projects, please contact:

Kristi Denney, Director of Externships & Pro Bono
University of Idaho College of Law
kdenney@uidaho.edu
(208) 885-7947

Brenda Bauges, Director of Externships & Pro Bono
Concordia University School of Law
bbauges@cu-portland.edu
(208) 639-5426

---

By Hon. Jim Jones

The grant of executive clemency to three U.S. servicemen charged with war crimes has raised concerns about the integrity of the military justice system. On November 16, 2019, the President pardoned an Army Lieutenant who had been convicted of ordering his troops to shoot unarmed civilians, as well as an Army Major who was awaiting trial on a murder charge. The third serviceman received a sentence reduction for his crime.

A number of military justice experts, including former Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers, have opined that the executive intervention was inappropriate. They say it casts unwarranted doubt upon the fairness of the military justice system. The pardon of the Major, whose trial was scheduled for February 2020, is of particular concern because it came even before the system had an opportunity to work. It would be akin to a state governor pardoning a murder defendant prior to trial.

Leaving the debate on the pardons to the experts, I want to share my observations regarding the military justice system. I was commissioned as an Army officer in 1964, admitted to the Idaho State Bar in 1967, and volunteered for Vietnam service in 1968. My day job in Vietnam was serving as an artillery officer for a heavy artillery battalion in Tay Ninh Province, which is about 50 miles northwest of Saigon.

Every battalion, including mine, had discipline problems that resulted in the convening of special courts-martial. A special court-martial is not particularly special if you are the defendant. These proceedings dealt with a wide range of offenses, but incarceration upon conviction was limited to one year. There were not nearly enough JAG lawyers in Vietnam to represent special court-martial defendants so defense in the hinterlands was usually handled by non-lawyer officers.

Word soon got around amongst miscreants in the battalion that I was a full-fledged lawyer. Defendants could choose any officer in the battalion to defend them so I became the go-to defense counsel. I’d never had any JAG training but the battalion had a copy of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and a how-to manual, which was helpful in getting started.

I defended about a dozen special courts-martial. The usual offense was giving in to temptations of the flesh in Saigon when the troops were supposed to be fetching ammunition or parts for our cannons. It was a serious offense because we shot up tons of ammo every day and it was critical to keep the big guns in good repair. Other charges included violating orders, insubordination, theft, and misappropriation of vehicles. One fellow faced an AWOL charge for overstaying his leave in the States to work 39 days on Senator George McGovern’s presidential campaign. Another was charged with tossing a fragmentation grenade under his First Sergeant’s bunk, an unlawful practice known as “fragging.” Luckily, the First Sergeant was not in his bunk at the time.

Although I’d entered the service being somewhat skeptical of the even-handedness of the military justice system, I found that it worked pretty darn well in practice. The three-member court-martial boards took their responsibilities seriously. A not guilty verdict was possible if you stressed the need for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the necessity for competent evidence to prove every element of the charged offense.

Our boards were comprised of battalion officers. Some of them told me the battalion commander informed them that he expected guilty verdicts and that he had given them heck on at least three occasions for not delivering. This is called command influence and it is prohibited. Nevertheless, the board members were willing to call it as they saw it and generally dispensed proper justice.

My second case provided a couple of valuable lessons. My guy was charged with consorting with a civilian woman outside the wire of his firebase. He was adamant that he “did not have sex with any woman.” As it turned out, he was lying and rightfully got convicted.

The first lesson one gets in defending the accused is that you can’t always rely on protestations of innocence. That lesson came through loud and clear in this case. More surprising was that a few weeks later word came down from the JAG office in Saigon that his conviction had been overturned. At the start of the trial, I’d asked one of the board members to recuse because my guy told me the two of them had a bad history. The JAG reversal was based on the board member’s refusal to recuse.

Nobody had told me that all conviction records were reviewed by JAG officers for potential error. I was surprised and impressed. About one-half of my cases ended with a guilty verdict and about half of those were overturned on review by the JAG folks in Saigon. Between the dedication to duty of the board members and JAG review of convictions, my view was that defendants got a fair shake from the military justice system.

Nowadays, all court-martial defendants have the right to representation by qualified legal counsel. The protections afforded to defendants are now fairly comparable to civilian courts. I can see no good reason to distrust our military justice system, nor for commanders at any level to distort the system by interfering in on-going court-martial proceedings, either for or against a defendant.

As an interesting side note, one of the JAG officers in Saigon at that time was also from Idaho. When I set up my law practice in Jerome in 1973, Bill Hart was already practicing there. He told me about his Vietnam service, which had included a review of court-martial cases. Bill was later elected as district judge for Minidoka County in 1987 and served with distinction until he passed away in 2005.

---

By Jennifer Wennig

A native of Haiti, Rose-Hermance Rony grew up in Florida before heading west to pursue her educational goals. Rose earned her undergraduate degree in history with a focus on political science from La Sierra University in Riverside, California and later earned a master’s degree in education from Concordia University’s online degree program.

Currently in her 3L year at Concordia University School of Law, Rose said she was drawn to the “hands-on” approach at Concordia Law and their focus on mentoring future lawyers. “As an immigrant, first-generation in American schools, it can be harder to network so I wanted an educational experience that placed a priority on mentorship to help me make a meaningful connection that would contribute to me becoming a successful lawyer.”

After graduating from La Sierra, Rose embarked on a one-year mission as a teacher in the Marshall Islands and continued teaching in Florida for another 10 years before attending law school. Teaching deepened Rose’s passion for helping others and piqued her interest in the law.  “When I was teaching, I knew some students were living in deplorable situations,” said Rose. “I would hear stories about what was going on in homes and with family members and I knew I needed to find a way to help those children.”

Pro Bono Champion

As a student at Concordia Law, Rose has been active in the school’s pro bono program. Her first pro bono engagement was with CASA—Court Appointed Special Advocates. “I became part of CASA because I wanted to help children in need and as guardian ad litem I pick up where the social worker leaves off,” said Rose. Guardians ad litem function in the judicial system as advocates for children who have been removed from the care of their parent(s) or guardian(s). Some of Rose’s responsibilities include conducting home and school visits and providing the children with resources to help them cope, improve, and succeed.

“I believe that it is only in helping others that a person learns who he or she truly is,” said Rose of the value of pro bono service. “In doing this work, students will gain legal experiences as well as life experiences that they otherwise would not have had the chance to get.”

Rose has certainly put her energies into helping others. In addition to CASA, she has participated in the Parental Termination Rights Court charged with observing the proceedings and drafting statements of fact for the judge; focused on housing issues with Idaho Legal Aid; and, worked on an asylum case with the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program (IVLP). “There are many others,” said Rose, “but those are most memorable because I learned from my clients; I was able to learn new skills and laws during all of my pro bono assignments.”

Knowledge to share

Rose’s personal immigration experience gives her a unique perspective on the potential perils of not understanding the laws of the United States. She said when her family moved here, they were offered little guidance in navigating the immigration system. “We had to figure it out ourselves,” said Rose. “I was fortunate to have educated parents who researched what we needed to know and taught it all to my sisters and me.”

With the knowledge that “small mistakes can cause someone to lose their immigration status,” Rose has initiated a Legacy Project at Concordia Law to help newly arrived immigrants and refugees have a better understanding of our legal system. Rose is working with the International Rescue Committee (IRC) to create a class that explains laws that may be particularly pertinent to them and the consequences they may face if found violating a law. Rose explained that while refugees participate in orientation classes and workshops when they first arrive in the United States, the immigration session is quite brief and lacks pertinent legal details.

When those refugees try to obtain permanent residence or citizenship a year or two later, they may be denied if they have broken a law, a law they likely weren’t aware of.  While those violations may seem inconsequential, such as “fishing in the wrong pond,” Rose said, “ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in American courts.” And, such mistakes can invalidate immigration status.

Intent on making the class as useful as possible for immigrants and refugees, Rose worked with the IRC to identify which issues are most prevalent with their clients. She then recruited fellow students to conduct research and is now working on a PowerPoint presentation that will be reviewed for accuracy and relevancy by immigration lawyers. Rose hopes to start scheduling classes as early as January 2020.

“I want to be proactive and not reactive,” said Rose. “I want them to have a fair chance to truly live the American Dream.”

Concordia University School of Law’s pro bono services and legal clinic are housed within 5th & Front, an innovative model that provides students with experiential learning that also benefits the community. To learn more about this program, check out 5th & Front.

---

By Carey Shoufler

The Advocate recently interviewed retired Government teacher and long-time Law Related Committee member, Cindy Wilson to get her perspective on the state of law related and civic education in Idaho.

Carey: Share a little about your background and experience as an educator.

Cindy: When I first began teaching in tiny Pierce, Idaho in 1984, I found a big hole in student understanding of how local and state government worked. So, we began taking an annual field trip to Boise each year to see the legislature in action. Students raised money all fall and then traveled to Boise for a 3 day stay in the spring. I couldn’t believe what a positive influence this had on students, many who had not ever left north central Idaho prior to their field trip. That field trip continued at Pierce School until the school closed, long after I left there.

When I moved to Orofino we got students involved in YMCA Youth Government. Students participated regionally and then traveled to Boise for the state convention. We had several students elected Youth Governor and Chief Justice which meant they traveled to the East Coast to meet with students from all over the United States.

It was when I was in Orofino that I first became involved with Law Related Education. In the fall of 2000, I attended a workshop on The Supreme Court and elections. While there I learned about the Mock Trial program and we created a team to compete. I saw students from our small community become passionate about civic knowledge and activity and realized the importance of teaching and encouraging them to become caring members of their community while still in high school.

There are so many organizations like the Law Foundation that work to increase resources for civics learning. One activity I remember fondly was our annual mock trial performance. Students from the high school presented a mock trial of Little Red Riding Hood. Junior high students were the jurors in the trial, and elementary students came to watch. The local courthouse opened a large courtroom for us; we had local media cover the trial, and it became quite popular amongst our students.

We also worked with the local county clerk to put together a get out the vote campaign. Students arranged rides to the polls for people and worked with our school buses to take voters from the local assisted living home to vote. On election day, students stood on street corners all around town with placards reminding people to vote. Afterward, the county clerk came into our classroom and congratulated students for getting involved and raising voter turnout that day.

Carey: Share about some of the ways you think our Law Related Education program helps/enhances civic education.

Cindy: Since my early days working with students and watching them get so excited about participating in civic activities and especially the connection they appreciated in how adults treated them when they were involved, I’ve recognized that we have to provide hands-on activities for students to learn about the U.S. Constitution. Once students get the bug and become passionate (and they all do – every single one of them!) we create lifelong active citizens who make better communities.

I love how the LRE program offers so many opportunities for students. For example, the Mock Trial program gives students a chance to not only learn about how the law and courtroom works, but also to practice it. There is no better learning! When students actually DO it, act as attorneys and witnesses, they understand it so much better. It creates a chance for them to learn information not out of a textbook, but by actually experiencing in a trial. It’s a well-known principle of great teaching that having an audience and an element of competition increases student learning. That’s what our mock trial program does.

Our 18 in Idaho magazine is my favorite way to introduce students to their local government. At the beginning of every school year, I always started with the magazine and let students read through how state and local laws affected them when they hit adulthood. They really enjoyed the layout and information of the magazine and many took them home to share with their parents. We continued to discuss what they had learned in that first lesson throughout the school year. I want every classroom to have a set of these magazines so students can learn and understand the law and how it relates to them.

Our Law Day Podcast Contest is giving students an opportunity to show off their technology skills and meet them where they are. The complete traditional research on a topic, interview their sources, and then use their creative energy to create a podcast that focuses on a topic. Again, this is pedagogically sound in that there is an element of competition, audience, and also creativity, all principles that engage students in learning. I’m especially excited about this year’s theme for the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and voting right and hope every student in the state will participate in it! And they can win cash prizes!

Carey: In the last couple of years you’ve spent a lot of time traveling around the state. What are some things you’ve learned about what kinds of support the students and teachers of our state would like from a program like ours?

Cindy: As I’ve traveled the state, I realize the truth about civic education: while it is happening in small pockets of some of our communities, it is stifled by a lack of information and resources and frankly time to participate in civic programs.

The recent emphasis on STEM learning is wonderful, but not at the expense of not providing education in the social studies. As No Child Left Behind began testing math and English, teachers put their emphasis on teaching that. We now have seen a new push for students to learn science and there are wonderful programs and opportunities for that. In fact, in Idaho the STEM action center is an entity of the Governor’s office and has a budget and partnerships across the state. There are so many resources available in this field of study now, particularly for our girls.

However, we don’t have the same resources or emphasis on civic education across our state. National research clearly shows a lack of information about the nation’s founding and documents that protect our freedoms. It also shows that a majority of young people don’t have a good understanding of how government works and that they don’t want to get involved in it or even vote.

As I said, there are pockets of excellence in civics and I’m seeing a renewed emphasis around the country with civic learning departments and associations being created in some states.

With the lack of school funding in particularly many rural areas, there is no money for buses to transport students and compensate teachers for the additional time spent outside of their regular duties to get students to participate in extracurricular activities that promote civics. Teachers are doing the best they can, but many of those who were active in civics in the 80’s and 90’s are retiring and we need to promote our activities and programs to new teachers and offer them the support that can help them facilitate the learning.

Carey: Can you share some info about the projects you’ve been working on for LRE?

Cindy: Our LRE Committee works hard to promote the programs we offer but it’s difficult in a state our size to inform all teachers about what’s available. One thing we’re doing this year is identifying schools and individual teachers in districts across the state and meeting with teachers one-on-one to explain the program, offer them a classroom set of our Turning 18 magazine, and assist them in creating a Mock Trial team or publicizing our podcast contest.

We’ve seen some success and real excitement from teachers and a willingness to get involved. This year, Boise High will have a Mock Trial team for the first time in years and we have interest from more Treasure Valley schools for next year as well as schools from north and south Idaho. It’s a slow process but more and more teachers are learning about what we offer and working to get it into their classrooms and the hands of their students. It seems if we can inform people and find those who understand the importance of project-based learning then we can get these opportunities to students throughout the state.

Carey: What information do you share with people – attorneys and teachers – when you are trying to get them involved with LRE?

Cindy: I like to tell personal stories of students who participated in hands-on-learning activities and how their interest in the law and respect for the US Constitution and their government’s principles were influenced by LRE. Every single student who was involved in civic participatory learning continues to stay involved in their communities today. Several of my former students have run for office and one just won his third term as mayor of Orofino. They still message me when they vote or want to discuss what’s happening in the news.

Every single child in Idaho deserves an opportunity to learn about their government and the law. The Idaho Law Foundation offers that through the LRE programs. We just need to get people informed about what’s available and then offer them the assistance to make it happen. Having been a part of so many of these programs for students, I KNOW they work to help students learn and that we can find time in the day to provide this for our kids.

I’d love to see everyone in the Idaho legal community work with us to inform individual teachers and students about what is available to them. It would make our network so much stronger! Oftentimes, all it takes is one passionate student can get something started in their school. Imagine if we could have every single school in Idaho represented? We could create an educated electorate in Idaho. How exciting!

Carey: Anything else you’d like to add?

Cindy: It’s so important for us to get everyone on board to help us spread the word about what’s available for kids today. Most attorneys and judges realize the importance of learning about the law and government. We need them to share how that can happen through our LRE program offerings.

Really, LRE is all about creating partnerships and working with community leaders and getting them and teachers connected to help students learn about their government and the law. I really believe in civic education.

Co-Authored by the Board of Attorneys for Civic Education

In November, our nation will once again be afforded the opportunity to exercise one of the greatest privileges of being a United States citizen: the right to vote, in a year that also celebrates the 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment that afforded all women in the United States that same privilege. While Americans rarely shy away from learning about and debating a candidate and his or her stances on import issues, many might miss the essential foundation of citizenship: a solid understanding of our system of government and the rights and responsibilities that are part of being a United States citizen.
Unfortunately, with budget cuts and focus in other educational areas, civics education and related activities have received less emphasis than other subject areas. In response, a group of Idaho attorneys who recognized the importance of civic education founded the Attorneys for Civic Education (ACE) in 2013.
ACE is a public service project of the Idaho State Bar’s Government and Public Sector section, but anyone can join. ACE members share a common vision: to increase and sustain the opportunities for civics education in Idaho’s schools in order to ensure that Idaho’s citizens will have a solid understanding of the Constitution, the rule of law, and our form of government. ACE achieves that vision through volunteer recruitment and fundraising for three of Idaho’s civic education programs: Idaho We the People, YMCA Youth in Government, and the Idaho High School Mock Trial Program.

Idaho We the People

Idaho We the People promotes civic competence and responsibility among Idaho’s upper elementary and secondary students. It is partnered with the nonprofit, non-partisan Center for Civic Education which has a network of public and private sector organizations and educational leaders in every state and congressional district in the country. Since its inception in 1987, more than 30 million students and 75,000 educators have participated.

The foundation of the We the People program is the classroom curriculum. It complements the regular school curriculum by providing students with an innovative course of instruction on the history and principles of U.S. constitutional democracy. The program’s culminating activity is a simulated congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges acting as members of Congress. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues.
Idaho We the People underwent exciting changes recently. The State Capitol hosted the 2019 State Competition using East and West Wing hearing rooms for the Competition and the Lincoln Auditorium for the Awards Ceremony. The Meridian Medical Arts Charter High School Team taught by Blake Gaudet won the 2019 State Competition. This was State Coordinator Troy Hamilton’s last year and Idaho We the People thanks him for his years of service.

Idaho’s new State We the People Coordinator is Pete Kinnaman of Meridian Medical Arts Charter High School. The College of Idaho in Caldwell, Idaho will host the 2020 State Competition on Thursday, January 30, 2020 and will see participation by additional high schools. The winner of the State Competition will have the honor of representing Idaho at the National Competition near Washington DC during April 24-27, 2020.

Idaho We the People survives on volunteers to mentor and coach students, assist teachers, judge competitions and fundraise. If you are interested in helping in any way with this worthwhile cause, please contact Pete Kinnaman at Pete.Kinnaman@gmail.com or Dan Wong at wongdan@att.net.

YMCA Youth in Government

Every spring students from across the state come to the Capitol and Idaho Supreme Court buildings to participate in the State Session of YMCA’s Youth in Government program, the second longest running program of its kind nationwide. Youth in Government is an educational program that offers civic education using an interactive experience involving direct participation in the process of all three branches of government. Students take on roles from each branch including Governor, Speaker of the House, Deputy Attorney General, and Chief Justice. The program also provides an opportunity for students to participate as lobbyists and members of press staff. Last year, 256 students from 14 high schools and one YMCA delegation participated in the program. Participating high schools included Bear Lake, Blackfoot, Caldwell, Capitol, Centennial, Eagle, Grangeville, Highland, Leadore, Mountain Home, Oakley, Orofino, Rocky Mountain, and Timberline.
Here’s how it works. Prior to the State Session, there are regional conferences at which students run for elected offices, attend workshops to prepare for the State Session, and compete for advocate positions for the Youth Supreme Court oral arguments. Also preceding the State Session, the student delegations submit proposed bills to debate during legislative hearings. Examples of issues addressed by the proposed legislation include loan repayment assistance in school districts struggling to retain certified teachers; immunization; assisted suicide; overtime wages for farm employees; smoking in vehicles with minors; and term limits. There may also be proposed legislation on lighter topics, such as trampoline parks in high schools and designating silver as the state metal. Whatever the subject of the legislation, the exercise affords students the opportunity to draft a bill and debate it with other students who have varying backgrounds and beliefs.
By the time this article is published, the 2019-2020 is already underway and the State Session is just around the corner on April 23-24, 2020. This year’s State Session will, as in prior years, showcase the talents and leadership potential of students from all over the state. The lessons and skills learned in Youth in Government are designed to not only teach student participants about the work of government, but also to learn how to advocate for their ideas, respect and value the opinions of others, and debate important issues with civility. Moreover, the YMCA reports that Youth in Government alumni are thirty percent more likely to vote and that eighty-eight percent of alumni over the age of 25 have received a post-secondary degree.

For more information about Youth in Government, including how to start a delegation or support an existing delegation, contact the YMCA Youth Coordinator at (208) 377-9622, extension 441. You can also learn more about the program by visiting the program’s website at https://www.ymcatvidaho.org/youth-in-government/.

Idaho High School Mock Trial

The Idaho High School Mock Trial Competition, sponsored by the Idaho Law Foundation’s Law Related Education Program, teaches students in grades 9-12 about the law and the legal system by participating in a simulated trial. Students from all parts of Idaho prepare a hypothetical legal case. Then, in real courtrooms, before real judges and attorneys, teams try their cases – from opening statements, through direct and cross examination, to closing arguments, each team has its own attorneys and witnesses and must be ready to present either side of the case. Teams compete in one of three regional tournaments. The top 12 qualifying teams compete in the state tournament, and the state champion qualifies to compete in the national tournament.

In 2019, the mock trial program piloted the Coach Development Initiative. The overall goal of the project is to develop a better prepared, more supported, and more committed cohort of teacher coaches for Idaho’s mock trial program.

Teachers who participate in the initiative commit to:

• Register a mock trial team from their school that commits to complete the mock trial season
• Participate in a training program to prepare the teacher to effectively work with a team
• Attend monthly mentoring sessions for support and troubleshooting throughout the mock trial season
• Complete an end of season survey and attend an end of initiative focus group

Once they’ve completed these requirements, participating teachers receive one of their six required professional development credits, paid for by the Law Related Education Program, and a $500 stipend.

Idaho’s mock trial program is still looking for volunteers for 2020 competitions. Regional competitions will take place in February and March in Idaho Falls, Lewiston, and Caldwell. The state competition will be in Boise from March 18 to 20. For more information or to volunteer, visit idahomocktrial.org or contact Carey Shoufler at cshoufler@isb.idaho.gov.

Hilarity for Charity

Hilarity for Charity is a creative, clever, and very entertaining all for a good cause: civic education. In June, ACE sponsored its sixth annual Hilarity for Charity event to raise funds for civic education programs in Idaho. A dedicated group of local improv comedians have volunteered their time and talents to support this worthy cause for the last six years. Idaho law firms and several Idaho State Bar Practice Sections have consistently and generously sponsored this fun event so that all funds raised from ticket sales go directly to the three civic education programs ACE supports. The 2019 raised $3,750. For 2020, ACE has set an ambitious goal to double that amount and raise $7,500, allowing the group to contribute $2,500 to each of our three programs. The event is in the planning stages but will be held in Boise in June. Look for more information soon.

The attorneys who founded ACE recognized that they have both an opportunity and a responsibility to share their knowledge about civics. Due to our education, experience, and role in society, lawyers are uniquely situated to further the cause of civics education. Attorneys enjoy the opportunity to experience all branches and levels of government to one degree or another. Sharing the resulting insight is rewarding.

Attorneys also have a responsibility to share their civic knowledge. Rule 6.1 of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer’s pro bono work may include “participation in activities for improving the law, the legal system or the legal profession.”

As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once said, “The fundamental skills and knowledge of citizenship are not handed down through the gene pool. They must be taught and learned anew by each generation.” ACE is dedicated to being engaged in that teaching process, through their involvement and support of civic education in Idaho. For more information about ACE, visit attorneysforciviceducation.org or contact attorneysforciviceducation@gmail.com.

By Hon. Sergio A. Gutierrez

What do you get when you combine a run/walk race event with a charitable cause? You get the Access to Justice 5K FUND Run/Walk! The A2J 5K race is entering its 7th year in 2020 and is proving to be quite a success.

Race Background

The creation of A2J 5k was the legacy project of a graduate of the Idaho State Bar’s Academy of Leadership for Lawyers. Maureen Ryan Braley, Associate Director of the Idaho State Bar, participated in IALL in 2014. Maureen was a runner and knew lots of other lawyers who were runners. She wanted to create a lawyer-focused running event that raised funds and awareness for an important cause – the need for free civil legal services for poor and disadvantaged Idahoans.
In addition, she wanted to create an event where people of all income levels, especially younger attorneys, could feel like they were helping a good cause without having to write a big check. For just $25, participants can enjoy a beautiful day outside in Boise’s Foothills and know they are supporting a great cause.

All proceeds raised through the A2J FUND RUN/WALK race go directly to help address the legal needs of less fortunate individuals and families served by the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program, Disability Rights Idaho, and Idaho Legal Aid Services. In 2019, the legal community together with the general community helped raise over $12,000.00 in sponsorships and entry fees, including a generous contribution from our Lead Sponsor, the Fourth District Bar Association.
Since its inception in 2014, the event has raised over $48,000 for the Access to Justice Idaho Campaign. These funds help survivors of domestic violence, victims of unlawful housing practices, victims of consumer scams, and people with disabilities receive benefits and entitlements. The growing participation of members of the legal and general communities has been exciting to see.

Success in 2019

In 2019, 280 people registered for the A2J 5K FUND Run/Walk. The contribution of the folks who register makes a meaningful impact. As Mother Teresa said, “Not all of us can do great things. But we all can do small things with great love.”
Having run the A2J 5K run, I can tell you that the race venue and course is just what one would want to experience regardless of age, ability, and fitness level. The race takes off from Fort Boise Park. Those of you who have run Robie Creek will feel right at home with the setting. For those who have not, just imagine hearing the theme music to the movie “Rocky” at the start of the race.

You then take off on Mountain Cove Road with a gentle ascent for 1 ½ miles. At the turnaround, and if you have entered your four-legged friend in the race, you will get a chance to water up at the Camp Bow Wow water station before having gravity give you just the right push to the finish line.

Upon completion of the race, you will be able to enjoy meeting a host of great community sponsors along with treats for you and your four-legged friend. Camp Bow Wow, Bandana Running and Walking, and Jete Bars are just a few of the community businesses that sponsored the event in 2019. We hope to recruit even more great local businesses as sponsors in 2020.

Awards are given to the top three finishers in the following categories: men, women, high school boys, high school girls, boys 12 and under, and girls 12 and under. In 2019, we added the esteemed Learned Foot travelling trophy that is awarded to the biggest team. The Idaho Supreme Court team won last year’s Learned Foot trophy. Who will win it in 2020?

How to Get Involved

Not into running or walking, but love the outdoors? The event needs volunteers! The A2J FUND RUN/WALK needs individuals to help check in racers, record scores, and direct racers along the course. Volunteering at the event is a great way to see what it is all about. It takes up a few hours one beautiful Saturday morning, but by the end of your shift you will want to be a participant the next season.

Attorneys work long grueling hours and they need a chance to get some fresh air and interact with colleagues outside of the courtroom and office. It is clear from the smiles and cheers from the participants and volunteers that everyone at the event is enjoying themselves.

You will not want to miss this great race event. I cannot promise everyone will experience a runner’s high, but I can promise everyone will have helped make a difference in the lives of many individuals and families who benefited from your thoughtfulness.

---