Author: Lindsey Welfley

This year’s Professionalism Award recipients have devoted their careers to the practice of law in a way that upholds the highest standards of civility and professionalism. Each of these individuals embodies a reputation of mutual respect and camaraderie with their colleagues. In addition to submitting biographical information, each recipient was asked to respond to the following questions:

What ideals or values do you let guide your professional life?

What advice would you give your younger self as you entered your law practice or began your career?

---

Peter J. Smith IV
First District

Values: “I firmly believe that lawyers should serve as a force of justice for the world. Now, we are all lawyers – serving for justice should be a given. However, in my purview, being a force for justice means intentionally applying skills and expertise to achieve a result that benefits our clients and our communities. In our system, justice is achieved through gritty and strategic determination. When we work to achieve justice, we can change the world for the better because – by the very nature of our priorities – our team is focusing on it. This does not mean fighting for the sake of fighting or being difficult simply to wear out an opponent. It means viewing each matter as the opportunity to reach the just result. When we do this, we make the world a better place. Arguments that matter are arguments where we have the opportunity to make our workplaces and communities better places to live, work, and play. Impact (for the good) is essential.”

Advice: “There are three things I would tell my younger self as I entered into law practice (not coincidentally, these are the three things I tell any new hire at Smith + Malek).First, maintain the balance between the work we do and the lives we live. Work when it is time to work and hold a boundary to step fully away from the desk/email and be present in the world that exists outside of the office. When work and life overlap regularly, neither is done well.

Second, respect oneself, respect others, and take responsibility. There is no purpose in being a jerk and dodging responsibility. Act with integrity.

Third, our calling is to make the world a better place by bringing clarity to difficult situations, and sometimes when people are facing the biggest challenges they’ve ever seen. No matter the legal issue or task, our focus should be on making tomorrow better than today for our clients.”

Peter is licensed to practice law in Idaho, Washington, the Ninth Circuit, and the Court of Federal Claims. He was born and raised in Sandpoint, Idaho. He attended Walla Walla University, graduating with a degree in international business. He attended Pepperdine University School of Law and graduated in 2004.

He started his firm, Smith + Malek, alongside Luke Malek in 2015. He practices in the areas of business, real estate, litigation, and appeals. He’s argued cases before the Idaho Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and has tried numerous bench and jury trials.

In 2021, Governor Little appointed him to the Idaho Lottery Commission. He also served as the Vice Chairman of the Post Falls Urban Renewal Commission and an at-large member of the Idaho State Bar Real Property Law Section and Indian Law Section. In his spare time, he enjoys running, mountain biking, skiing, and golfing with his wife and children.

His personal mission is to change the world for the better through the work he does. He finds great accomplishment in helping people by reducing conflict and providing clarity. This can mean helping people resolve disputes through litigation or working to avoid ambiguity that could lead to disputes in transactions. As an attorney, he believes he has a unique responsibility to help create a better world, better communities, and better workplaces for the next generation of Idahoans.

---

Jana B. Gomez
Second District

Values: “Faith, kindness, and integrity, among others. As to faith, I constantly remind myself of the eternal picture and my true purpose in life; doing so makes the day-to-day challenges and stresses seem less significant. I strive to treat everyone with kindness. I believe legal disputes should focus on legal arguments and not involve personal attacks. Regarding integrity, I’ve always lived by the motto of doing the right thing, even (especially) when no one is watching. Grit, grace, and gratitude are other values high on my list.”

Advice: “Believe in yourself; you are intelligent and can do this! I’d like to go back and tell my younger self to have more confidence and not worry so much because it all works out.”

Jana graduated from the University of Idaho College of Law in 2009. After law school, she clerked for the Honorable Thomas G. Nelson of the United States District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the spring of 2010, she began working for Ada County as a Civil Deputy Prosecutor. In 2014, she moved back home to Lewiston and worked as the Civil Deputy Prosecutor for Latah County. She was the City Attorney for the City of Lewiston from 2015 to 2022. She joined Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. as Senior Corporate Counsel in the Fall of 2022. Her focus is contract law and contract negotiations.

She was a member of the Steering Committee for the Idaho Academy of Leadership for Lawyers from 2020 to 2023, a Board member of the Idaho Municipal Attorneys from 2021 to 2022, and served on the University of Idaho Law Advisory Council from 2015 to 2021. She has served on the Lewis-Clark State College Legal Support Program Advisory Board since 2016. She has also been a mentor for the University of Idaho College of Law Professionalism and Ethics program since 2013.

She was awarded the Idaho Municipal Attorneys Rising Star Award in 2016. Also in 2016, she received the City of Lewiston P.R.I.D.E. award for Integrity. She was selected as the Idaho State Bar Outstanding Young Lawyer in 2014.

She’s been married to her husband, Omar Gómez, for 15 years. They have a 13-year-old daughter, Mia. They enjoy camping, boating, and traveling.

---

Timothy L. Fleming
Third District

This award is presented posthumously – Tim Fleming died on November 12, 2022. Tim was nominated for this award by colleagues and friends. Their comments indicate why Tim deserves this award. If there were a check box for professionalism, Tim Fleming checked them all.

Tim embodied professionalism during his life and career. He never wavered from his dedication to being a professional attorney with members of the bench, bar, pro se litigants, clients, and the community. Tim had a talent for listening, advocated for the just and lawful treatment of others, and tirelessly promoted a community grounded in care and respect. Tim had the rare ability to make sure everyone was included in a compassionate way. From his work as a prosecutor to his civic leadership roles that translated into significant benefits to others, Tim’s life demonstrated that he worked tirelessly to be of service to others.

One of Tim’s favorite quotes was of Chief Joseph who said, “Treat all people alike. Give them the same law. Give them an even chance to grow.” Tim embodied this quote in his day-to-day life and work.

Tim was raised in Buhl, Idaho. He interned for both Congressman Richard Stallings and Vice-President Dan Quayle. He graduated from the College of Idaho in 1994, and from the University of Idaho College of Law in 1997. He served as the Caldwell City Prosecuting Attorney, the Chief Deputy Gem County prosecutor, and the elected Gem County Prosecuting Attorney. He entered private practice in 2011, working with his twin brothers Todd and Ted, and attorney Jacob Welsh. He served many legal and community organizations. He is survived by his wife who he met in law school, Lori, and daughter, Emily.

---

Nicholas G. Miller
Fourth District

Values: “The best guiding principle I’ve found for professional responsibilities and service in my law firm is four simple words: ‘It’s not about you.’ In professional practice, that is of course pretty easy because it’s right in the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but it’s good to remember that lawyers serve their clients, not themselves.

More broadly speaking, I’ve found ‘not about you’ to be a guiding principle in law firm practice. As Managing Partner, my ‘elevator speech’ when asked what I do was to reply, ‘My job is to help others succeed. Staying outwardly focused on the needs of others enabled me to preach and manifest tolerance for a diversity of views, personalities, opinions, and practice styles.”

Advice: “I really try not to look back, and I also think one’s career is directed more by opportunities or challenges that come your way and how you respond to them than a conscious game plan. Given what I was presented with, I don’t think I would do anything differently. Still, I like the words of Warren Buffett when asked by a graduate school of business student about ‘advice to us who are just starting out.’ Buffett said, ‘There are three things: marry the right person, do something you really like to do, and work for someone you really admire.’ Even though I didn’t hear those words until later in life, they resonated as something I had largely done, and good advice to others.”

Nick’s enthusiasm for the practice of law and the profession in general serves him well, as Nick led Hawley Troxell’s strategic efforts for seven years while managing partner and served over a decade on the firm’s Board of Partners. His leadership in this role was critical to the successful acquisition and integration of another, significant 20-attorney law firm.

Nick’s commitment to being a part of a better educated tomorrow continues to have significant impact statewide on communities and students. His expansive legal representation also includes the drafting of school bond legislative reforms, forming general pledge bond systems for Idaho universities, and creating innovative financing to combine municipal systems.

Nick helps students advance their education in expanded, modern school facilities. He’s helped multiple school districts, colleges, and universities throughout the State of Idaho achieve 150 bond issuances. This funding resulted in numerous new school buildings for K-12 students, the expansion of college campuses, and the development of entirely new colleges.

Nick’s dedication to the legal profession and the communities he serves has not gone unnoticed. He has been recognized as a Fellow of the American College of Bond Counsel, Best Lawyers in America Corporate Law (since 1995), Public Finance Law and Securities, Capital Markets Law, and Lawyer of the Year Corporate Law (2009 and 2013), Martindale-Hubbell’s 20-year Award for maintaining an AV® Preeminent™ Lawyer Rating, and Chambers & Partners ranked Band I-Corporate/Commercial attorney. In 2022, Nick was honored with the Idaho Business Review’s Leaders in Law Lifetime Achievement Award.

Nick’s extensive community and civic involvement includes current or past commitments with the Idaho Business for Education Council, Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce Intermountain Venture Forum (Past Chair) and Executive Committee, Boise Valley Economic Partnership (Past Chair), Idaho Shakespeare Festival Board of Trustees (Past President), Idaho Public Television Board of Trustees (Past President), and the Idaho Board of Corrections (Past Board Chairman).

Nick received his J.D. from Stanford University in 1976 and was admitted to the Idaho State Bar in September 1983.

---

Dennis S. Voorhees
Fifth District

Values: “I let honesty, humility, and determination guide my professional life. My word is my bond. The slightest deceit to a judge, client, or colleague irreparably crushes reputation. Humility is a better guide than ego. Determination is essential because good lawyering is a long game.”

Advice: “Cultivate an impulse to stay positive and happy – as the forces inherent in lawyering tend toward negativity. Compete continuously with yourself, not others; good lawyering is a work in progress. Treat court clerks, staff, and counsel as kindly as possible. Work hard on problems, not on people. Build confidence early on by mastering critical skills: the rules of procedure and evidence, trial advocacy, writing, and research. Take advantage of mentoring opportunities with people you admire – both inside and outside of the law. Choose public service commitments wisely and then give them your best effort. Know that in the end, the esteem of colleagues will never be as important as that of your spouse and your children. The dreams and aspirations of your staff are every bit as important as your own – make sure they know that and support them in their journey. Be as quick to forgive yourself as you are quick to forgive others for the inevitable misunderstandings and dustups that arise in the course of lawyering; we are our own toughest critics.”

Dennis graduated from the University of Idaho College of Law and was admitted to the Idaho State Bar in 1978. He is a  Fellow of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and a certified elder law attorney (National Elder Law Foundation) since 2000. He served as a Commissioner of the Idaho State Bar (2014-2017) and as President in 2016. He practiced elder law, estate planning, and special needs planning for persons with disabilities. He also served as a Trustee for the Twin Falls Public Library (1986-2001).

---

Carole I. Wesenberg
Sixth District

Values: “My Finnish mother taught me to face every challenge with sisu. Sisu literally means ‘guts’ or ‘intestines,’ but it embodies all the values to succeed in life. It’s courage, integrity, dignity, and adaptability; it’s a mindset; and it’s personal responsibility. The essence of sisu lies in embracing discomfort and adversity as opportunities for personal growth.”

Advice: “Your time is your most valuable resource, and you’ll never regret the time you spend outside of work. Take time for yourself. Take time to visit friends and family. Give back to your community. Help others. Finding a work-life balance will make you happier in your life.”

Carole is currently the Career Law Clerk for the Honorable N. Randy Smith with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is also an Instructor for the Paralegal Studies program at Idaho State University.

Prior to her current employment, she served as an associate with Quane Smith, LLP in Idaho Falls, Idaho, focusing on insurance defense law. She started her career as a law clerk to the Honorable N. Randy Smith with the Sixth Judicial District of Idaho.

She received her Bachelor of Science degree in geography from Montana State University in 1994, and her Master of Science in environmental science from Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania in 1997. She received her Juris Doctor from Southern Illinois University in 2000. She was admitted to the Idaho State Bar in September 2000.

---

William R. Forsberg, Jr.
Seventh District

Values: “I believe in working hard, being honest, and respecting others.”

Advice: “Be prepared to work harder than you might think necessary. You will make mistakes but determine that you will learn from them when they occur.”

William (“Bill”) was born and raised in Wenatchee, Washington, He came to Rexburg, Idaho to attend Ricks College in 1970. Bill graduated from Washington State University with a degree in business administration in 1974. In 1978, he graduated with honors from the J. Reuben Clark Law School.

Bill is admitted to practice before all courts of the State of Idaho, the Federal District Court for the District of Idaho, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the United States Tax Court. He has also served as a Marine Corps Judge Advocate.

While at Ricks he met and married his wife, Colleen. Bill and Colleen have six daughters and 14 grandchildren.

By Lindsey M. Welfley

For someone who swore she’d never be a family law practitioner, Ashley Marelius sure set herself apart as an extraordinary young Idaho lawyer practicing exclusively that. Ashley was born and raised in Olympia, Washington, and for as long as she can remember, being an attorney was career goal number one. Ashley completed her undergraduate degree at Central Washington University with a major in law/justice and sociology with a minor in psychology. She moved to Boise for law school and graduated from Concordia University School of Law in 2016, being admitted to the Idaho State Bar that same year.

Law school was far from easy for Ashley as it was extremely difficult balancing the workload and the necessity to work to support herself. She is, perhaps surprisingly, proud of the fact that she actually failed out of her first term. Ashley promised the four women who sat on the appeal panel – Cathy Silak, Tenielle Fordyce-Ruff, Jodi Nafzger, and Anne Comstock – that if reaccepted, she would make them proud. With support from Rebecca Nickell and their weekly meetings, Ashley survived law school. Ashley remains forever grateful to these women for believing in her.

While still in law school, Ashley participated in the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association (“ITLA”) Street Law Clinic and met Sean Breen during a pro bono opportunity on which they collaborated. After the case concluded, Ashley joked with Sean that if he were ever looking to hire an associate, she’d be interested. Much to her delight, she received a call two weeks later from Sean asking her to come in for an interview and to meet with the other partners in the firm. Ashley was hired in 2014 and has been with the firm ever since.

Ashley practices exclusively family law since being admitted to the Bar in 2016, handling mostly divorces and child custody with an emphasis on working with victims of domestic violence. Two years ago, she replaced two outgoing partners, Mark Manweiler, and Gary Davis, making her the newest partner of the firm now known as Breen, Ball & Marelius, PLLC. Since then, Ashley has been acting as Managing Partner, handling all the ins and outs of the firm’s business operations. When reminiscing on those early years, Ashley says she is forever indebted to both the past and current partners at her firm for being willing to take a chance on her – “I don’t know where I would be otherwise.”

In addition to her busy professional life, Ashley is heavily involved in several community programs. Since 2011, she has worked with the Boise Bully Breed Rescue as their Foster and Adoption Coordinator and board member. Ashley spends a great deal of time finding suitable, loving homes for these otherwise neglected animals. She continues to work with the ITLA Street Law Clinic and with the Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) program, representing guardians ad litem in child protection proceedings. Ashley and her partner, Matt, are also licensed foster parents and have assisted in several child placements over the last several years.

Ashley has had several individuals to whom she’s looked for guidance, support, and encouragement throughout her life. In her personal life, she names her sister, Dena, at the top of the list. After the loss of both parents as a teenager, Dena assumed the caretaker role of Ashley. “I was a very difficult teenager and other than Dena, I definitely wouldn’t be where I am today.”

In her professional life, Ashley again mentions how grateful she is for the past (Mark Manweiler and Gary Davis) and present partners (Sean Breen and Jim Ball) in her firm for being so supportive of her law career. She also names the women at Bjorkman, Dempsey, Foster LLC – particularly Alyson Foster and Jennifer Dempsey. Ashley is thankful for the support of strong female voices in this profession. She notes that these women have treated her with kindness and generosity, matched with zero judgment.

Ashley is also so thankful for her rockstar right hand, Ruby, for all the support, laughs, and eye rolls, her partner, Matt, for showing her what a supportive relationship should be like, her girlfriends, Lyndsey, Paige, and Hannah who have supported her through schooling and beyond, and the family law judges for all the guidance and kindness. Finally, she is thankful for the people who do not practice the motto of “being kind” and still throw difficult curve balls toward young attorneys. Though it is hard for her to thank them, she thinks it is important for young attorneys to learn first-hand how they don’t want to practice and how small acts can have big impacts.

---

By Lindsey M. Welfley

Marvin M. Smith (“Marv”) is another of Idaho’s premier trial lawyers, having practiced in Eastern Idaho for the majority of his career. Marv was born and raised in Lehi, Utah. After graduating high school, he attended Utah State University, where he graduated magna cum laude with his Bachelor of Science degree in Social Science (two majors and three minors). After his undergraduate education, he continued on to law school at Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, graduating cum laude with his juris doctorate in 1977.

Immediately after graduating law school, passing the bar exam, and being admitted to practice in both Utah and Idaho, Marv migrated to Idaho where he took his first job in Twin Falls with the late Lloyd Webb’s firm. There, he learned a great deal of the law with the likes of Lloyd Webb, the Honorable Monte Carlson (dec.), and Judge Theron Ward.

During his decision-making process for what to do after law school, Marv went through a series of offers before making his decision to stay on the civil side of things – upon graduation he was sifting through job offers from the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office, the federal chambers in Boise for a clerkship, a firm in Utah, and Lloyd Webb’s firm. Ultimately deciding to move out to Twin Falls, Marv recounts that this decision afforded him several opportunities to improve his lawyering skills and was overall an incredibly good experience. In this capacity, he had the opportunity to act as a Special Prosecutor on two occasions; these instances further solidified his confidence in the decision to stay with the civil side of the law.

After working with the Webb firm for five years, Marv moved his family to Idaho Falls to take a job with Buck Hiller in 1981. While with the Hiller firm, he practiced insurance defense and medical malpractice defense, with a small amount of plaintiffs’ work mixed in.

Marv was appointed to the bench in 1988. He served as a Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County from 1988 to 1990, after which he was elected to the district bench. He subsequently served as District Judge for the Seventh Judicial District from 1990 to 1996. After leaving the bench, he went to work at Sharp Anderson Hall & Smith, where he stayed for 13 years. His next endeavor was to go out on his own, then later merged with Hawley Troxell. He has remained in practice with Hawley Troxell in their Idaho Falls office since 2015.

The majority of his work has been focused on medical malpractice defense and he has worked with physicians and hospitals for the better part of four decades. Since 1990, Marv has acted as a mediator.

When asked about any cases or moments that stick out as being particularly memorable, Marv mentions two important ones. First, during his tenure on the district bench, Marv presided over a six- and half-month-long trial regarding a crop loss dispute. Second, Marv recounts that he will never forget the first jury trial he tried and won, stating that “it is a high point for any young lawyer.”

Throughout his career, Marv has looked to several individuals as both role models and mentors. He cites both Lloyd Webb and Monte Carlson as his early inspirations as far as the practice of law and adds that he learned a great deal from Buck Hiller. “All three of these men were consummate professionals and fantastic in-court lawyers, each with their own style.” In a more contemporary base, Marv states, “I knew if I could ever be as prepared for trial as Curt Thomsen or Gary Cooper, I’d be okay.”

In addition to time spent on his career, Marv dedicates much of his time to community service and volunteer work. He coached junior league basketball for many years. He served as a trustee for the Museum of Idaho for 10 years; he recalls how rewarding it was to see that museum transform from a local community museum to somewhat of a state or regional attraction. Maintaining his humility, Marv states, “I didn’t have anything to do with that, I just enjoyed being along for the ride.” Marv is a committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and donates a lot of his time to the church. He has also helped build two houses through the Habitat for Humanity initiative.

Marv and his wife, Janet, have four daughters and one son. His son, also Marvin Smith, has carried on the legacy and is an attorney practicing with his father in the Hawley Troxell Idaho Falls office. The majority of Marv’s family resides in the Eastern Idaho area, with the exception of one daughter who lives in Guam with her husband. With 13 grandchildren, Marv enjoys his time with family and catching as many of his grandchildren’s recitals and sports games as possible. Reminiscing on the good ole days, Marv is quick to note that he used to play a lot of basketball with a “former” respectable vertical leap of 35 inches – “the wheels have fallen off and now I trip over a dime!”

In the midst of such a distinguished career as his, Marv holds that he is truly fortunate to be in this profession. “I am incredibly lucky to have the mentors that I’ve had who took the time to show me how to do it, I think, the right way. As well as some contemporaries along the way who, even when we were on the opposite side, could always remain cordial and respectful.” In all his experience, Marv speaks highly of Idaho’s bar and expresses the lasting hope that collegiality can be retained as we move forward.

In addition to his mentors, Marv would offer thanks to his current and former partners and assistants for their patience in working with him and for the assistance they gave him in his career.

Lastly, Marv would like to thank his family, especially his wife, Janet, for allowing him to take the necessary long hours and missing the occasional birthday party; and his son for making sure he goes to the right office in the morning.

---

By Lindsey M. Welfley

With a robust legal career and impeccable reputation for civility and professionalism, Larry C. Hunter is certainly a name well-known among the Idaho State Bar.

Larry was born in Northern Utah while his dad was attending Utah State University, but was raised in Twin Falls, Idaho from first grade on – “I consider myself a native Idahoan.” After graduating from Twin Falls High School, Larry moved to Massachusetts to complete his undergraduate education at Harvard University. He graduated cum laude in 1968 and received the Harvard Service Award. While at Harvard he recalls one of his most interesting classes was one called “Law in Society,” which was taught by a Harvard law professor. It focused on the myriad ways the law impacts our daily lives. Larry says this kindled his interest in pursuing a legal career. After graduation, Larry served a two-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Chile. After his return, he enrolled in the Master’s Program in Latin American Studies at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. While there, he met and, after a long pursuit, married his wife, Iris, in 1971.

Larry’s first job after college and his time in South America was with the Bank of America as an International Banker in the Latin American Division. He and his family moved to San Francisco, where they lived until his decision to go to law school in 1973. Larry chose Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago and again they relocated. During their time in Chicago, Larry and his family were asked to attend a Spanish-speaking congregation where Larry served as Branch President.

Once in law school, Larry and Iris knew he had made the right decision. While he had never known a lawyer or even that much about the practice of law, he had always gravitated more toward an area where he could be of benefit to society. Besides being a husband, father, and lay minister, Larry worked part-time all three years of law school for a corporate law department and in a law firm.

By the time he graduated from law school, he and Iris had three young children, the third of whom was delivered on the day of a final exam in his third year. Larry graduated with his law degree in 1976 and began looking for work back in Idaho. Larry accepted a job with Moffatt Thomas and remained there for the entirety of his 45-year legal career (the firm later merged with Hawley Troxell).

Larry recalls the day he and his family pulled into Boise. It was the same Saturday in June 1976 that the Teton Dam burst, flooding the upper Snake River Valley and causing major loss of property and minor loss of life. When Larry walked into work on Monday, the Teton Dam case was the first on his desk. Unbeknownst to him, this early litigation experience would catalyze a career-long love for trial work.

In the early years of his practice, Larry worked briefly on business work as a transactional lawyer, because he had experience in the banking industry. He focused on real estate transactions and banking law. Soon he got into litigation and that is where he found his home. As Moffatt Thomas was a civil law defense-oriented firm, Larry mostly practiced defense litigation in a variety of settings: agricultural products and chemicals, aviation litigation, and automotive design cases. His defense work, as he states, could really be summed up as a products liability practice.

After practicing in these areas for approximately 35 years, Larry also began working as a mediator and arbitrator while maintaining his litigation practice. (Iris says helping raise six children contributed to his success as a mediator.) Overall, he maintained a truly diverse practice, working also in administrative law and serving as the attorney for the Idaho State Board of Accountancy for over 10 years. On occasion, he did a little domestic relations work and had a couple of criminal law cases. One of the more interesting things that Larry did in the practice of law was in South America. From 2014 to 2016, Larry was the Associate Area Legal Counsel for his Church in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile as a volunteer missionary. He represented the Church in a variety of legal scenarios.

Larry has served the profession and his community well over the past four decades, taking his retirement in 2020. Throughout his six children’s school years, he volunteered in various PTO capacities, coached a variety of youth sports teams, and served on various committees of the Boise School District. He remembers, after coaching his eldest daughter, Risa’s, soccer team for two years, telling the rest of his children that he would coach their teams as well for as long as he had coached her. This put him on track for 12+ years of coaching youth sports. He also chaperoned for his children’s music competition trips. Larry and Iris continued to work with the Spanish-speaking community of their Church after moving to Boise as well as filling other significant volunteer positions in the Church.

Larry consistently dedicates himself to giving back to his community as well as his profession. He has been a member of the local Boise and Eagle chapters of the Kiwanis International service club since 1978. He served on its Board of Directors and as President from 2010 to 2011. Additionally, he served as Lieutenant Governor of the Utah-Idaho District of Kiwanis from 2016 to 2018, and then as Governor from 2018 to 2019.

While he claims not to have a musical bone in his body, Hunter enjoys music very much and joined the Boise Philharmonic Board of Directors in 2000. He served as Board President from 2007 to 2008 and has been a member of the Boise Philharmonic Foundation since 2008. He now serves at the Governor’s appointment as the public member of the Idaho State Board of Accountancy. Even before his retirement, Larry and Iris served as poll workers on election days.

In service to the profession, Larry Hunter has been committed to a long history of volunteer initiatives since the late 1990s. He recounts, notably, his time as an Idaho State Bar Commissioner from 2001 to 2004, stating that it was “truly a highlight of my legal career, being able to serve in that capacity.”   Additionally, Larry served as Idaho’s delegate to the American Bar Association House of Delegates during various terms spanning from 2004 to his retirement in 2020. His work on two specific ABA committees during that time frame was of significant importance to him:  first, serving on the ABA Standing Committee on Paralegals from 2005 to 2009 (Chair from 2008 to 2009); and second, serving on the ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Program from 2016 to 2019. Larry has also served as a Bar Exam grader for the past several years; it is a method of giving back to the profession that he continues to enjoy. Another opportunity for service in the profession that was particularly fulfilling was his work with the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program Soundstart initiative at the Idaho Women’s Prison, the Salvation Army, St. Michael’s, and more working with new mothers, expectant mothers, and families regarding child custody issues. In addition, he has worked on the Anti-Harassment, Anti-Discrimination Subcommittee of the Idaho State Bar’s Professionalism & Ethics Section.

Throughout both his professional and personal life, Larry names several individuals as having an important influence on him. During his time at Harvard, Larry fondly remembers those he met during his Church experience, as well as those he met and lived with. Once he made it to Boise, Larry recalls the first person who interviewed him at Moffatt Thomas, the late Ron Rock, a litigator at the firm, as having influenced his early career. Later, Larry would go on to model the work of the late Richard “Dick” Fields, eventually following him on to the Board of the Boise Philharmonic. Dick showed Larry the importance of serving the community and the profession. Both men showed him the importance of ethics and civility in the practice of law.

When asked about any specific achievements or accomplishments that stick out to him, Larry exercises quite a level of humility despite his long resume and outstanding reputation. He says he will always remember being sworn into the bar; a day that held a deep importance to him, after he had made the decision to change professions, weathered a challenging law school experience, passed the bar exam, lost his father to cancer just before the ceremony, then to be in sworn in. “That was a big deal and a big highlight, but I don’t want it to sound like it’s all been downhill from there because it hasn’t.” Larry also remembers in 2003 when he and Iris had the opportunity to host in their home a Russian Supreme Court Judge – “That several-day experience was enlightening on both sides.”

Throughout the course of his career, Larry has always worked to ensure that the Rule of Law is upheld. He passionately writes, “The practice of law is meant to safeguard the Rule of Law in our society. It is our responsibility as attorneys to assure the rule of Law is upheld.” His career is a testament to that. He adds, “Civility is essential to a beneficial practice of law. That does not imply a milk toast approach to advocacy, but it does eliminate, or at least reduce, disrespect and unnecessary contention.”  His reputation is a testament to that.

Larry and Iris have six children and 22 grandchildren. They enjoy traveling, family time, reading, golfing, kayaking, and several other fun pastimes. Larry would like to mention the deep appreciation he has for the support his wife, Iris, has always given him. Anything he has accomplished is due to that support. His children are all productive members of society, and he thanks them for their patience, good humor, love, and support through the years. Larry would also like to thank his associates at Moffatt Thomas and later Hawley Troxell for what they taught him and how they gave him fellowship and a solid platform for his practice for almost 45 years. Also, friends and extended family have been important in providing him with a positive environment throughout his time in Boise.

---

By Lindsey M. Welfley

Justice Burdick was the first member of the bench I met when I started with the Bar a little over eight years ago. I had only been on the job for a month when I was ushered away to the Annual Meeting in Sun Valley (also my first work trip). I was fresh out of college and had stepped into the coolest world I could have imagined at the time.

After the Distinguished Lawyer & Jurist Award Dinner on the first night of the Annual Meeting, my boss at the time, Mahmood Sheikh, told me that if I’d like he’d introduce me to “all the right people to know.” After shaking several hands and perfecting how to introduce myself in a professional manner, I found myself getting ready to meet one of the justices of the Idaho Supreme Court. I had never been more intimidated in my life. Mahmood introduced me to Justice Roger S. Burdick after which we all had the most hilarious, lively, authentic conversation – with Justice Burdick feverishly inviting anyone within earshot to come join us at the table. Mahmood was correct; Justice Burdick was certainly the right person to know. I remember thinking to myself later that night, if these are the types of people who serve on our judiciary then we are truly in the best of hands.

That is a sentiment I still hold to be true here in Idaho. Year after year I get to interview members of the bench for the Distinguished Jurist Award and my confidence in our judiciary is renewed with each conversation – Justice Burdick is no exception.

Born in Boulder, Colorado but moving to Boise in his youth, Justice Roger S. Burdick has had the unique tenure of living out four separate legal careers – seven years in legal practice, 12 years as a Magistrate Judge in Jerome County, 10 years as a District Judge in the Fifth Judicial District, and 18 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court.

After graduating from Boise High School, Burdick returned to Boulder to attend the University of Colorado during the “golden years of the ‘60s.” He received his Bachelor of Science in finance with a minor in geology and marketing in 1970. Upon graduation, Burdick made his way back to Boise for a job with the State of Idaho’s Department of Finance as a bank examiner. His decision to go to law school came about through a series of unconventional circumstances – disillusioned with the banking industry after observing some questionable conduct by management, Burdick was told he had 30 days to find a new job. Now with a wife, child, and no job, Burdick remembered he had recently taken the LSAT. His score came back high enough to make applications to law school. And so, he did.

Justice Burdick attended the University of Idaho College of Law in Moscow for what were “the most fun three years of [his] life. The friends you make in law school stay with you forever.” During his senior year, Burdick recalls listening to the late Lloyd Webb give a lecture that was so captivating he had to speak to the man. After following Webb to the snack area and introducing himself, Burdick praised the lecture as the best speech he had ever heard and asked to work with him. Burdick told Webb, “I’ll come down for an interview and if it doesn’t work out, I can at least get you a bid to paint your office.” Burdick graduated with his juris doctorate from the University of Idaho College of Law in 1974, interviewed for and got the job with Webb, Pike, Burton & Carlson, and moved to Twin Falls with his wife and first son.

Burdick loved every minute of his time in Lloyd Webb’s firm – right up until he got fired, for reasons he’s still not certain. This put him again back to square one, with a wife, child, and no job. After a call to Bill McCurdy who worked for Dave Leroy at the time, Burdick secured a job in Boise as a deputy prosecuting attorney for the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. “This was where I finally learned how to be a lawyer.” During this time, Burdick served as the Chief trial lawyer in charge of narcotics prosecutions.

After his stint in Ada County, Burdick again relocated to the Magic Valley to take a job in Jerome. He got a call from Bill Hart to come work on a public defense contract for Jerome, Camas, Gooding, and Lincoln counties. From 1977 to 1980, Burdick did this public defense work while also holding a general practice. In 1980, Burdick was elected Prosecuting Attorney for Jerome County while continuing his general practice. One year later, in 1981, Burdick was appointed to the bench as a Magistrate Judge for Jerome County, where he served until 1993. Justice Burdick remembers his first day as a magistrate judge being one of deep significance. He kept a quote on his desk that said, “I want to feel today like I did the first day I felt in this job.” He recalls the wonder and importance of it being his guiding lights.

Justice Burdick’s presidency of the Magistrates Association from 1989 to 1991 aligned with a turning point for the judiciary; salaries were due for an increase and until then no magistrates had been welcomed onto the Judicial Council or the Administrative Conference. Justice Burdick and his colleagues on the Magistrates Association championed access to both of those avenues. From 1991 to 1993 Burdick served as the first magistrate judge on the Judicial Council and as an ex officio member for magistrate discipline. He distinctly remembers only being allowed to participate during certain portions of the meetings, sitting in the hallway and waiting to be called in. Burdick made sure that all his future replacements would have an unrestricted seat at the table.

Burdick considers his time spent on the Judicial Council his most important act of service to the profession. During this time, Burdick helped to amend the Judicial Code of Conduct twice and implement the first Idaho Judicial Council Rules of Civil Procedure. These procedural rules were a significant improvement for judges who have issues before the council. Before then the process was a bit informal.

Burdick kept his guiding lights – the wonder and importance of judicial service – at the top of his mind during his later appointment to the district bench in 1993. Burdick served as a Fifth District Judge, chambered in Twin Falls, from 1993 to 2003 – subsequently serving as Administrative Judge for the Fifth Judicial District from 2001 to 2003 and as Presiding Judge of the Snake River Basin Adjudication from 2000 to 2003.

Burdick recalls his time presiding over the Snake River Basin Adjudication (“SRBA”) as some of his most rewarding work. Prior to taking the caseload, Burdick had a deep interest in the matter and regularly attended all the seminars. When Justice Linda Trout called him to see if he’d take it, he happily obliged despite being told by nearly everyone that it would ruin his career. Burdick gave the best retort: “It’s easy to ride a draft horse, but it’s the wild ponies that build character.” This was a principle he held as truth throughout his tenure as a District Judge; whatever case nobody else wanted, he would take.

In 2003, Justice Burdick received his final judicial appointment as the 53^rd Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court. During his time on the Supreme Court, Burdick chaired numerous committees and has been involved in a variety of court-related initiatives. He served two four-year terms as Chief Justice, as elected by his peers, from 2007 to 2011 and again from 2017 to 2021. During both terms as Chief Justice, he served as a delegate to the Conference of Chief Justices. Burdick oversaw the adoption of the new Idaho Judicial Council Rules of Civil Procedure and the revised Idaho Code of Judicial Conduct, both approved in 2016. He has also spent the majority of his career on the bench serving as chair for the Idaho Criminal Rules Committee.

Justice Burdick says he’ll never forget walking into the Supreme Court building for the first time as a justice – “I still get goosebumps every time I talk about it.” He reminisces on the last 18 years fondly, stating, “I am still so touched that I had that opportunity. The outpouring of gratitude for being on the bench as a justice has just been overwhelming.”

Burdick, now retired, still serves as a senior justice, taking a minimal caseload as needed. When he is not donning the robe, he and his wife, Rachel, enjoy a lot of gardening, fishing for salmon (but certainly not fly fishing), deer hunting, and reading – though Burdick jokes, “Never for content. I’ve been reading for content for decades and I’m tired of it.” He used to be an avid triathlete, competing in several triathlons during his younger years. Burdick has two sons; Phillip, who lives in Sitka, Alaska, has worked in the education system for the majority of his career, and Benjamin, who lives in Boise, runs the Boise Contemporary Theatre. Between them, Rachel and Roger have eight grandchildren spanning ages 21 to six, who keep them busy.

Burdick states, “I have had a career I could have never dreamed of. I would have never had it without the support of others. Professionally, thank you to the overworked, underpaid clerks of the Court who are the scaffolding all judges depend upon. They are too numerous to mention, but never forgotten. I would have never accomplished my work on the district or appellate court without my brilliant, hard-working law clerks who enriched my legal work, but more importantly my personal life.” “And lastly, but always first, my family. I gathered and still get inspiration from my boys as I watch how hard they have worked to succeed in their many endeavors and now in fatherhood. Nothing would have gotten done without the support of my Jerome family and now Rachel. Thanks to all.”

---

Jennifer M. Schindele

In the last year, the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program received over 4,000 applications for legal assistance.[i]

The Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program (“IVLP”) is a program of the Idaho Law Foundation, a nonprofit organization with a mission to increase access to legal services and enhance public understanding of the law. IVLP provides a safety net for low-income individuals and families in Idaho who require civil legal services and cannot afford to pay for them.

IVLP delivers services to individuals in different ways; one way is through managing community legal clinics. Advice and counsel legal clinics allow pro bono attorneys to provide and review legal documents, answer legal questions, and make recommendations on the best course of action, including, where necessary, referral of applicants to further legal services through IVLP or partner agencies.

In 2021, as IVLP endeavored to return to some pre-pandemic routine, it landed at the Garden City Public Library in Garden City, Idaho. While many of the prior clinic venues were still prohibiting in person meetings, the Garden City Library welcomed lawyers back in.

As it turns out, libraries are ideal for legal clinics. Libraries are a reliable and trusted source of information and resources for many community members. Libraries are often a first point of contact for individuals seeking legal information or to determine if their problem could be resolved with the law. In addition to typically being in centralized locations, libraries provide access to technology to populations less likely to have a broadband connection to the internet or free printing capability.  

Most legal clinics are walk-in or first-come-first-serve and advice is received only if an attorney happens to be available. In part due to pandemic fall out, in October of 2021 when IVLP initiated its first Lawyer in the Library Legal Clinic in Garden City, it quickly realized registration and scheduling for the clinic would be necessary to manage the number of patrons seeking legal assistance and the number of volunteer attorneys utilizing meeting space to provide that assistance. The pre-clinic preparation was helpful, and it was clear that a need was being met as the clinic registrations were full each week, often with a waiting list.

More than a year later, IVLP has multiple Lawyer in the Library Clinics in the Treasure Valley up and running and ongoing discussions with additional libraries to expand even more. Offering an initial advice and counsel session can often confirm that the participants’ situation could have a legal remedy and suggest a course of action on self-help forms and filing. There are times when the participant’s issue does not have a legal solution, or the advice they receive is that they would benefit from hiring an attorney to represent them. In those cases, the participant may not leave the clinic with resolution or course of action, but they are always relieved to hear the perspective and advice of an expert.

Amanda Berardinelli, Programs and Outreach Librarian at the Garden City Library, has received positive feedback from participants who have received advice on issues ranging from will writing, adoption, rental agreements, and parental rights. “Navigating the legal system, finding the correct forms to fill out, and figuring out the next steps can be intimidating for many people. Having professionals in the library to refer our patrons to has been a great resource,” said Berardinelli. “We hope to continue this partnership far into the future.”

Volunteering for IVLP’s Lawyer in the Library Clinics also provides opportunity to the attorneys. Requiring that the participants pre-register for the clinics, the volunteers know ahead of time the type of legal issues they will be hearing. It’s an opportunity to gain experience outside of their current area of law and work alongside other attorneys with different expertise and experience. Clinic volunteer, Ian Frost, had been looking for volunteer opportunities when he heard about the clinics. Not having a lot of experience, he was apprehensive at first, but has enjoyed volunteering his time. “I like the variety of issues and the people that I have encountered. I wanted to become a lawyer so that I could do some good, and it has been gratifying to help people navigate their legal issues.”

Contact Jennifer Schindele at jschindele@isb.idaho.gov or Jenni Jordan at jjordan@isb.idaho.gov to find out more information on how to get involved with the Lawyer in the Library Clinics.

---

Current Lawyer in the Library Clinics Offered:

Downtown Boise Public Library: 1^st Tuesday of the month from Noon to 2pm

Garden City Public Library: 3^rd Thursday of the month from 4pm to 6pm

Nampa Public Library: 4^th Thursday every other month from Noon to 2pm (Feb, April, June, Aug, Oct, Dec)

Meridian Library-Cherry Lane: 4^th Tuesday every other month from 5pm to 7pm (Feb, April, June, Aug, Oct., Dec)

---

---

[i] From March 2022 until March of 2023.

Joshua D. Hurwit, United States Attorney
Kevin T. Maloney, Deputy Criminal Chief

Let’s say you represent a company and determine that an official of that company has committed criminal wrongdoing.  What do you do?  Self-report the violations or wait for government investigators to knock on the door?  There are risks to doing both.  In this article, we introduce the United States Attorney’s Office’s new Corporate Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the “VSD Policy”), which is designed to minimize the risks to companies of self‑reporting by rewarding companies that have built – or are taking concrete steps to build – cultures of compliance.

The VSD Policy rewards good corporate citizenship, but also promotes the enhanced and efficient investigation and prosecution of white-collar criminals.  It identifies a path for corporate counsel and the defense bar to earn significantly reduced penalties for their corporate clients.  It should allow companies to continue to operate and to benefit the public even when they uncover wrongdoing.  At the same time, resolving corporate wrongdoing without a guilty plea by the company should not be confused with leniency toward individuals who commit fraud or other crimes.  Such individuals will be investigated and held accountable, as always, pursuant to the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) principles of federal prosecution.

Clarity and Consistency:  Background on the New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy

In October 2021, Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) Lisa Monaco led a top-to-bottom review of the DOJ’s corporate enforcement policies and priorities.  DOJ leaders not only identified best practices from within the DOJ, but also sought input from the business community, the defense bar, consumer advocacy groups, and others.  This rigorous assessment led to the DAG’s announcement in September 2022 of a set of updated corporate enforcement policies.[i]  The policies aim both to ensure that individual accountability remains a top priority for the DOJ and to provide transparency and predictability for companies so they can benefit from being good corporate citizens.

As part of the policies – and in order to provide consistency and predictability across the country with respect to voluntary self-disclosure by companies – the United States Attorney’s Office community developed the Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, which is now in effect in every United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) in the country.[ii]

The VSD Policy’s goals can be summarized as follows:

1. To reward and incentivize corporate responsibility and a culture of compliance by clarifying and standardizing USAO policies on voluntary disclosure and corporate cooperation;
2. To achieve individual and corporate accountability by motivating companies (i) to build compliance programs capable of identifying misconduct and (ii) to expeditiously and voluntarily disclose misconduct to the government; and
3. To provide transparency and predictability to companies and the defense bar about the benefits and potential outcomes in cases in which companies voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate, and timely and appropriately remediate wrongdoing.

Taken as a whole, then, the VSD Policy seeks to enhance white-collar crime enforcement in a clear and consistent manner that rewards companies for being good corporate citizens.

Clear Benefits: The Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy’s Provisions

For companies, the primary benefit of the Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy is that, when the USAO determines that the VSD requirements are satisfied, the USAO will not seek a guilty plea from the self-reporting company.  Instead, the USAO could decline the case or enter into a non-prosecution or a deferred prosecution agreement.

So, what are the standards that a company needs to meet in order to obtain this benefit under the VSD Policy?

First, the disclosure to the USAO must be voluntary.  Voluntary means that the company did not have a preexisting obligation to disclose, such as pursuant to regulation, contract, or a prior resolution with the DOJ (e.g., a non-prosecution agreement or deferred prosecution agreement).  The disclosure must also come from the company, not from a whistleblowing employee or a through a qui tam action.

Second, the disclosure must occur before an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation, before any misconduct is publicly disclosed or otherwise known to the government, and within a reasonably prompt time after the company becoming aware of the misconduct.  The burden is on the company to demonstrate timeliness.

Third, the disclosure must include all relevant facts concerning the misconduct that are known to the company at the time of the disclosure.  The VSD Policy recognizes that a company may not know all relevant facts at the time of initial disclosure.  Accordingly, a company may satisfy the disclosure standard through a preliminary investigation and disclosure, with timely follow-up to preserve and collect relevant information and to update the USAO.

Fourth, no aggravating factor set forth in the VSD Policy, including those in the following, can apply to the misconduct.  Thus, the misconduct may not: pose a grave threat to national security, public health, or the environment; deeply pervade the company; or involve current executive management of the company.

Note that the presence of one or more aggravating factors does not necessarily mean that a guilty plea will be required.  But it does mean that the VSD Policy does not apply and the USAO will assess the relevant facts and circumstances to determine the appropriate resolution.

Finally, the company must fully cooperate with the government and agree to remediate the misconduct at issue appropriately.  Appropriate remediation includes, but is not limited to, the company agreeing to pay all disgorgement, forfeiture, and restitution resulting from the misconduct at issue.

If the USAO determines that these requirements are met, it will not require a corporate guilty plea.  Moreover, if a criminal fine is required as part of a corporate resolution (e.g., a deferred or non-prosecution agreement), that fine will not exceed 50% off the low end of the applicable fine range under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual.

Moreover, even if an aggravating factor precludes application of the VSD Policy, a company can still benefit by timely and fully self-reporting.  Such circumstances may well lead the USAO to recommend to a sentencing court, at least 50% and up to a 75% reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ fine range.  And the USAO may not require that the court appoint a monitor if the company has, at the time of resolution, implemented and tested an effective compliance program.  Thus, it’s important for companies to know that the potential existence of an aggravating factor will not preclude them from getting a material benefit in any potential resolution if they otherwise comply with the VSD Policy.[iii]

Putting the Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy into Practice:  Real World Examples

The USAO will decide whether a company has satisfied the Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy on a case-by-case basis through a careful assessment of the disclosure’s circumstances.  Understandably, corporate counsel and the defense bar seek real world examples to guide their decision-making and the advice that they give to clients.

With the VSD Policy being only months old, we cannot yet point to a case that has been fully vetted through the policy and made public.  But the DOJ has long used non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements for companies in appropriate circumstances, and we can point to several such agreements that might well fall under the VSD Policy.  These cases provide guidance to companies and the defense bar as they consider whether to voluntarily disclose wrongdoing to our office.

• The ABB entities corporate resolution demonstrates the value of a strong compliance program and an early decision to disclose.[iv]  ABB had entered prior resolutions with the DOJ based on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) violations and, as a result, implemented a compliance program.  That program detected further misconduct – an ABB employee bribed a high-ranking official at South Africa’s state-owned energy company.  Although the media publicized the misconduct, at the time of media publication, ABB had already scheduled a disclosure meeting with the Criminal Division of the DOJ.  The DOJ favorably recognized that ABB’s detection resulted from its compliance program, that it intended to promptly disclose, and that it was fully cooperating and remediating the misconduct, including by voluntarily making employees available for interviews and producing documents located outside the United States.  Balancing this positive conduct against the prior violations resulted in a deferred prosecution agreement for ABB, the parent company.  Two subsidiaries pleaded guilty.  South African authorities brought corruption charges against the offending individual corporate official.
• The VSD policy can provide companies with advantages in acquisitions of other companies, as seen in the prosecution declination of a French aerospace company, Safran SA.[v]  In post-acquisition due diligence of a new subsidiary, Safran discovered that the subsidiary had bribed a Chinese consultant.  Safran promptly disclosed the FCPA violations.  The DOJ declined prosecution because the company had voluntarily self-disclosed, cooperated, remediated, and agreed to disgorge the approximately $17 million of ill-gotten gains.
• The VSD policy will be a valuable tool in health care fraud cases as well.  In 2021, National Spine and Pain Centers, LLC (“NSPC”) entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the USAOs for the Central District of California and the Southern District of California.[vi]  NSPC agreed to pay $5.1 million to the government to resolve charges for receiving payments in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.  NSPC admitted that physicians received illegal kickback payments under the guise of a clinical research program and submitted inflated timesheets, resulting in overpayments from Medicare.  The USAOs considered NSPC’s anti‑kickback‑focused compliance program, its early engagement and cooperation, and remedial measures taken prior to its knowledge of the criminal investigation.  Nine individuals were charged in connection with the alleged scheme in the Central District of California in a related case.

A contrary example may also be helpful. 

• The case of Balfour Beatty Communities is a cautionary tale.[vii]  Balfour, one of the largest providers of privatized military housing, lied about required repairs and, as a result, pocketed millions of dollars in performance bonuses.  The company did not disclose or cooperate.  After the DOJ investigated, the company entered a guilty plea.  The Court sentenced Balfour to pay over $33.6 million in criminal fines and over $31.8 million in restitution to the U.S. military, to serve three years of probation, and to engage an independent compliance monitor for a period of three years.  As DAG Monaco noted, Balfour’s lack of adequate compliance programs and its failure to voluntarily self-disclose misconduct resulted in the company’s payment of “a price that outweighs the profits they once reaped.”[viii]

The prior examples illustrate how the USAO may view companies that implement robust compliance programs, recognize criminal wrongdoing, and try to do the right thing by disclosing to the government as soon as possible: exactly what the VSD Policy promotes.

Conclusion

The Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy’s incentives represent the DOJ’s renewed efforts to enlist companies in achieving good corporate citizenship throughout the country in all sectors and industries.  In Idaho, we hope that companies will step up and own up when misconduct occurs.  When companies do, they will have far better and more predictable outcomes under the VSD policy.  And all of Idaho will benefit from the resulting enhanced accountability for individual wrongdoers.

---

---

[i] https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-o-monaco-delivers-remarks-corporate-criminal-enforcement.

[ii] https://www.justice.gov/corporate-crime/voluntary-self-disclosure-and-monitor-selection-policies.

[iii] While the VSD sets forth these benefits where voluntary self-disclosure occurs, companies (like individuals) can receive benefits when they chose to cooperate with the government even though they did not timely disclose.  In such cases, the USAO will continue to evaluate all facts, circumstances, and the law, as required by the Justice Manual, and use discretion in determining the appropriate resolution, which includes the amount of any fine.

[iv] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/abb-agrees-pay-over-315-million-resolve-coordinated-global-foreign-bribery-case.

[v] https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-kenneth-polite-jr-delivers-remarks-georgetown-university-law; https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/file/1559236/download.

[vi] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/pain-management-organization-pays-51-million-settle-criminal-medicare-kickback.

[vii] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-global-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-privatized.

[viii] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-global-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-privatized.

Lori A. Fleming
Staff Attorney and Reporter
Idaho Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committees

The following is a list of rule amendments approved by the Idaho Supreme Court between July 2, 2022, and May 1, 2023.  Please note that additional amendments may have been approved after this article was submitted for publication on May 1, 2023.  Refer to the Idaho Supreme Court website for an up-to-date list of orders amending the Idaho Court Rules.  See http://www.isc.idaho.gov/recent-amendments.  Also, be sure to check the Idaho State Bar weekly E-Bulletin for your chance to comment on any future proposed amendments before they are adopted.

Idaho Court Administrative Rules

Rule 32.  Judicial Records Exempt from Disclosure.  Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(g) identifies a number of judicial records that are exempt from public disclosure.  There have been two recent amendments to this rule.  First, an April 1, 2023 amendment added new subsection (g)(29), which exempts from public disclosure “Pending grant applications and attachments submitted to the Guardian Ad Litem Grant Review Board for consideration of grant funding authorized under Title 16, Chapter 16 Idaho Code.”  The new subsection clarifies that, once a grant application has been approved and grant funds have been awarded, the application and attachments are no longer exempt.  Second, a May 1, 2023 amendment to subsection (g)(10) deleted the general reference to “Mental commitment case records” and more specifically identified the exempt records as “All records of proceedings relating to hospitalizations pursuant to Idaho Code sections 66-326, 66-329, 66-406, 16-2413, and 16-2414.”

Rule 43a.  Administrative Conference.  Until recently, the Administrative Conference was required to meet four times each year, or according to such other schedule as the Administrative Conference may adopt.  Effective April 10, 2023, subsection (b) of Idaho Court Administrative Rule 43a was amended to provide that the Administrative Conference shall meet three times each year, or according to such other schedule as may be determined by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Rule 45.  Cameras in the Courtroom.  Idaho Court Administrative Rule 45 governs the use of cameras and other audio/visual equipment in the courtroom during trial court proceedings.  The rule was amended on January 9, 2023.  Some parts of the rule were reworded and reorganized, but no significant substantive changes were made.

Rule 46a.  Cameras in the Supreme Court Courtroom.  Idaho Court Administrative Rule 46a governs the use of cameras and other audio/visual equipment in the courtroom during proceedings before the Idaho Supreme Court and Idaho Court of Appeals.  Effective January 9, 2023, the rule was amended to clarify that approval to video record or photograph a Supreme Court or Court of Appeals proceeding must be obtained from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals at least one business day in advance of the hearing.  Pursuant to the amended rule, the requirement for advance approval does not apply to the live broadcast of Supreme Court proceedings provided on an ongoing basis by Idaho Public Television/Idaho In Session.  Additionally, the amended rule states that preference will be given to restricting live coverage of Supreme Court proceedings to the Idaho Public Television broadcast, and that Idaho Public Television will provide a video and audio feed to other media.  Finally, the amended rule incorporates the I.C.A.R. 45 guidelines relating to equipment, dress, pooling of coverage, limits on coverage, and other matters that are relevant to appellate proceedings.

Rule 46b.  Cameras in Courtroom During Terms of Court Outside of Boise.  Idaho Court Administrative Rule 46b governs media coverage of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals proceedings held outside of the Supreme Court courtroom.  The January 9, 2023 amendments to this rule largely mirror the amendments to I.C.A.R. 46a.  Specifically, amended Rule 46b requires individuals wishing to video or photograph proceedings to obtain approval at least one business day in advance of the hearing; states that the advance approval requirement does not apply to live broadcast of Supreme Court proceedings provided on an ongoing basis by Idaho Public Television/Idaho in Session; and incorporates the I.C.A.R. 45 guidelines relating to equipment, dress, pooling of coverage, limits on coverage, and other matters that are relevant to appellate proceedings.

Rule 62(c), Appendix A.  Juror Questionnaire.  The “Disqualification” section of the Juror Questionnaire contained in Appendix A to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 62(c) was amended on March 9, 2023.  The disqualification criteria were reworded and reorganized, but no substantive changes were made.

New Rule 100.  Procedural Rules for Mental Commitments.  On May 1, 2023, the Court adopted new Idaho Court Administrative Rule 100.  The new rule sets forth the procedures that must be followed in mental commitment cases.  Subsection (a) of the rule states that, whenever a person is taken into custody or detained by a police officer or medical staff member without a court order pursuant to Idaho Code section 66-326(1) or Idaho Code section 16-2413, the prosecuting attorney must electronically file the evidence supporting the statutory basis for the detention within 24 hours of the time the person was placed in custody or detained.  Subsection (b) of the rule states that, whenever the court issues a temporary custody order and requires examination by a designated examiner, the designated examiner has 24 hours from the examination to report his/her findings to the prosecuting attorney who, in turn, has no more than 24 hours to file such findings with the court.

Idaho Criminal Rules

Appendix A.  Guilty Plea Advisory Form.  Paragraph 18.b of the Guilty Plea Advisory form found in Appendix A of the Idaho Criminal Rules erroneously stated that a defendant pleading guilty pursuant to a binding plea agreement will be allowed to withdraw his/her plea and proceed to a jury trial.  Effective January 27, 2023, paragraph 18.b was corrected to state that a defendant pleading guilty pursuant to a binding plea agreement will not be allowed to withdraw his/her plea and proceed to a jury trial.

Idaho Misdemeanor Criminal Rules

Rule 13. Misdemeanor Bail Bond Schedule.  The Misdemeanor Bail Bond Schedule found in Idaho Misdemeanor Criminal Rule 13(b) is divided into a number of different offense categories (e.g., motor vehicle offenses; license, registration, and insurance offenses; fish and game offenses; etc.).  In 2022, a generic “Other” designation, with an accompanying default bond amount of $300, was added to the end of each offense category.  The purpose of the “Other” designation is to account for any offenses that fall within an offense category but that are not specifically listed in the bail bond schedule.  Effective January 4, 2023, the “Other” designation and default $300 bond amount included at the end of the Fish and Game offense category was removed because it conflicted with the prefatory language of I.M.C.R. 13(b)(5), which states that the amount of bail for any alleged fish or game offense not specifically listed in the bail bond schedule “shall be the sum of $191.00.”

---

Kurt J. Starman

Cities and other local government agencies frequently contract for goods, services, and public works construction. These contracts are often approved with little scrutiny. In many cities, procurement contracts are routinely placed on the consent agenda and approved without discussion. As explained in the following, however, there are potential ethical and legal perils which public officials and municipal attorneys must keep in mind when procuring goods, services, and public works construction. Violations of Idaho law may result in civil penalties, criminal penalties, or both. Thus, public officials and municipal attorneys must be knowledgeable about these potential perils.

This article is intended to highlight some common procurement concerns and, more importantly, emphasize the notion that cities must adhere to high ethical standards. To that end, this article addresses conflicts of interest, prohibitions on contracting with public officials, prohibitions on splitting purchases, and bidding requirements for public works construction.

Conflicts of Interest

The Ethics in Government Act, which is found in Chapter 4, Title 74, Idaho Code, centers on conflicts of interest. The Act is based, in large part, on the premise that public service is a public trust. Therefore, the Act is intended to ensure honesty and impartiality in state and local government.

A conflict of interest is defined as an official action, decision, or recommendation by “a public official, the effect of which would be to the private pecuniary benefit of the person or a member of the person’s household, or a business with which the person or a member of the person’s household is associated [. . .].”[i] The term “public official” includes elected officials, appointed officials, public employees, and certain consultants.[ii]

If a conflict of interest exists, a public official must disclose the conflict prior to taking an official action or making a formal decision or recommendation.[iii] The method of disclosure varies. An elected official, for example, must disclose the conflict of interest prior to acting on a matter and follow the “rules of the body of which he/she is a member [. . .].”[iv] Appointed officials, public employees, and consultants must “prepare a written statement describing the matter required to be acted upon and the nature of the potential conflict, and [. . .] deliver the statement to his appointing authority.”[v]

The Ethics in Government Act does not preclude a public official from taking an action, rendering a decision, or making a recommendation. Instead, the Act requires the public official to (1) disclose the conflict of interest and (2) adhere to the city’s rules concerning conflicts. A public official who fails to comply with the disclosure requirements, however, is subject to civil penalties.”[vi]

Prohibition Against Contracts with Officers Act

The Prohibition Against Contracts with Officers Act, contained in Chapter 5, Title 74, Idaho Code, includes prohibitions concerning contracts involving public officers.[vii] Under the Act, public officers “must not be interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members.”[viii] Additionally, public officers “must not be purchasers at any sale nor vendors at any purchase made by them in their official capacity.”[ix] Any contract made in violation of these provisions “may be avoided at the instance of any party except the officer interested therein.”[x]

Stated differently, a contract made in violation of the Act is voidable by any party to the contract other than the offending public officer. Moreover, an “officer charged with the disbursement of public moneys, who is informed by affidavit that any officer whose account is to be settled, audited, or paid by him, has violated any of the provisions of [the Act], must suspend such settlement or payment, and cause such officer to be prosecuted for such violation.”[xi] A violation of the Act is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and incarceration.[xii]

There are two notable exceptions to the general prohibition against contracting with public officers. Under the first exception, a public officer with a “remote interest” may enter into a contract with that officer’s city. However, the public officer must disclose the remote interest, the matter must be noted in the minutes, and the city council must “authorize[], approve[], or ratif[y] the contract in good faith by a vote of its membership sufficient for the purpose without counting the vote or votes of the officer having the remote interest.”[xiii]

There are four categories of remote interests.[xiv] The first category pertains to non-salaried officers of not-for-profit corporations. The second category concerns employees and agents of a contractor, but only when they receive a fixed wage or salary. The next category covers landlords or tenants of a contracting party. The final category pertains to public officers holding a limited number of shares in a contracting corporation.

Even if a public officer falls into one these four categories, however, the officer cannot “influence or attempt to influence any other officer of the board [. . .] to enter into the contract.”[xv] A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor.[xvi] Additionally, the contract in question is, as a matter of law, void.[xvii]

The second exception to the general prohibition against contracting concerns uncompensated public officials.[xviii] Under the Act, an uncompensated public official “shall not be prohibited from having an interest in any contract made or entered into by the board of which he is a member, if he strictly observes the procedure set out in Section 18-1361A, Idaho Code.”[xix] Section 18-1361A, in turn, lists four requirements. First, the contract must be competitively bid and the public servant (or the public servant’s relative, if applicable) must submit the low bid. Second, the public servant may not participate in the preparation or approval of the bid specifications or contract. Next, the public servant must disclose, in writing, his/her interest and intent to bid on the contract. Finally, the public servant must adhere to all other procurement statutes.

Bribery and Corrupt Influence Act

The Bribery and Corrupt Influence Act, found in Chapter 13, Title 18, Idaho Code, includes additional prohibitions concerning contracts involving public servants.[xx]  Similar to the Prohibition Against Contracts with Officers Act, a public servant cannot “[b]e interested in any contract made by him in his official capacity, or by any body or board of which he is a member, except as provided in Section 18-1361, Idaho Code.”[xxi] The exceptions in Section 18-1361 apply when there are a limited number of potential suppliers and (1) the contract relates to a disaster or (2) procedures comparable to those found in Section 18-1361(A) are utilized, as delineated previously.

Similar to the Prohibition Against Contracts with Officers Act, any public servant who violates the Bribery and Corrupt Influence Act is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fines and incarceration.[xxii] Moreover, a violator “may be required to forfeit his office and may be ordered to make restitution of any benefit received by him to the governmental entity from which it was obtained.”[xxiii] If the violator is a public officer, forfeiture of office is automatic.[xxiv]

Circumventing Competitive Bidding Requirements

“Splitting a purchase” generally involves a single procurement which is “split” into two or more smaller transactions to circumvent competitive bidding requirements. A public official may not knowingly or willfully “split or separate purchases or work projects with the intent of avoiding compliance with” Idaho’s procurement statutes.[xxv] If this occurs, “the public entity which the officer or employee serves” is liable for civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each offense.[xxvi]

Public Works Contracts

The statutes described previously also apply, of course, to contracts for public works construction. Importantly, however, there are additional prohibitions specific to public works contracts.

Under Idaho law, it is “unlawful for any person to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a public works contractor within this state without first obtaining and having a license” unless an exemption applies.[xxvii] A common exemption, for example, is a public works project with an estimated cost of less than $50,000.[xxviii]

Moreover, when submitting a bid to a city for public works construction, a general contractor must list all subcontractors and their license numbers.[xxix] Before including a subcontractor on the list, the general contractor must receive some form of “communication” from the subcontractor.[xxx]

If a city enters into a contract for public works construction with an unlicensed or improperly licensed contractor, or knowingly awards a public works contract based on a bid that does not properly list all subcontractors, the city is a subject to an administrative fine of up to $5,000 per violation.[xxxi] If the Administrator of the Idaho Division of Building Safety receives a verified complaint from a licensed contractor about a potential violation, the Administrator is required by law to investigate the matter.[xxxii]

As explained, the offending city must pay any administrative fines – not the public officer. Nevertheless, public officers are subject to criminal penalties. Any “public officer who knowingly lets a public contract to [a contractor] who does not hold a license as required by [Idaho law] or knowingly fails to comply with the [statutes concerning the listing of subcontractors] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor [. . .].”[xxxiii]

Conclusion

This article is not intended to serve as a comprehensive review of Idaho’s procurement statutes. Rather, the primary purpose of the article is to emphasize that cities must adhere to high ethical standards when procuring goods, services, and public works construction. That is good government – and it is the law.

---

---

[i] Idaho Code § 74-403(4).

[ii] Idaho Code § 74-403(10).

[iii] Idaho Code § 74-404.

[iv] Idaho Code § 74-404(4).

[v] Idaho Code § 74-404(5).

[vi] Idaho Code § 74-406(1) (“Any public official who intentionally fails to disclose a conflict of interest . . . shall be guilty of a civil offense, the penalty for which may be a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars . . . .”).

[vii] The Prohibition Against Contracts with Officers Act generally applies to “public officers,” but that term is not explicitly defined.

[viii] Idaho Code § 74-501.

[ix] Idaho Code § 74-503.

[x] Idaho Code § 74-504.

[xi] Idaho Code § 74-508.

[xii] Idaho Code § 74-509.

[xiii] Idaho Code § 74-502(1).

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Idaho Code § 74-502(2).

[xvi] Id.

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] Idaho Code § 74-510 utilizes the term “public official,” instead of “public officer.”

[xix] Idaho Code § 74-510.

[xx] The Bribery and Corrupt Influence Act utilizes the term “public servant,” instead of “public official” or “public officer.” A public servant includes public officers, public employees, and certain consultants.

[xxi] Idaho Code § 18-1359(1)(d).

[xxii] Idaho Code § 18-1360.

[xxiii] Id.

[xxiv] Idaho Code § 18-1307.

[xxv] Idaho Code § 59-1026.

[xxvi] Id.

[xxvii] Idaho Code § 54-1902(1).

[xxviii] Idaho Code § 54-1903(9).

[xxix] Idaho Code § 67-2310(1).

[xxx] Idaho Code § 67-2310(2).

[xxxi] Idaho Code § 54-1914(2).

[xxxii] Id.

[xxxiii] Idaho Code § 54-1920(2).

Texie C. Montoya

Formed in 2013, Attorneys for Civic Education (“ACE”)[i] is proud to share with the members of the Bar the purpose behind its mission and several of its successes over the past 10 years of service to further civics education throughout Idaho. A work-group backed annually by the Idaho State Bar’s Government & Public Sector Lawyers Section and staffed by a group of attorney volunteers, ACE expresses its gratitude for the Section as well as the many generous donors that have supported its fundraising efforts to support the civics education programs for Idaho’s youth.

Origins and Vision

Ten years ago, the former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor visited Boise for Idaho’s inaugural Women and Leadership Conference – hosted by Boise State University’s Andrus Center for Public Policy.[ii] During Justice O’Connor’s visit, she shared that “less than one-third of eighth-graders can identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence,” adding that, “it’s right there in the name.”[iii]

That same year, ACE was created by Edith Pacillo, Jodi Nafzger, and Danielle Quade as their legacy project for the Idaho Academy of Leadership for Lawyers (“IALL”).[iv] IALL is a “highly selective and well-regarded leadership training program for lawyers from across the State of Idaho.”[v] “The mission of the Idaho Academy of Leadership for Lawyers is to promote diversity and inspire the development of leadership within the legal profession.”[vi]

The group formed ACE as their project because they recognized the critical importance of civics education in Idaho’s schools. In response to changes in federal funding for civics programs, ACE sought to increase participation by the Idaho State Bar in filling this important need. ACE recognizes that the key to a healthy, functioning democracy is a citizenry that is educated and knowledgeable about the United States Constitution, and the importance of the Rule of Law.[vii]

This common vision continues to unite ACE members: 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. Through volunteering and fundraising for outreach and education, ACE is committed to supporting a quality civics education for all Idahoans, emphasizing youth activities. ACE is always looking for additional members that share this vision – join our monthly lunchtime meeting every second Thursday!

​Unfortunately, due to a variety of factors, civics education can often take a backseat in schools to other subjects. Budgetary constraints have led to the programs supported by ACE suffering greatly reduced, or even completely diminished, funding. To help counter this, ACE holds an annual fundraising event called “Hilarity for Charity” – a night of comedy improv presented by its namesake troupe – that passes every dollar generously donated to support Idaho’s civic education programs. In 2022, this effort raised over $11,000 to directly support Idaho students.[viii]

Sobering Civics Statistics and How ACE Seeks to Address Them

Beginning with the 2016-2017 school year, Idaho joined a number of other states by requiring that high school students pass the U.S. citizenship exam before graduation.[ix] Some advocates for civics education claim that policies like these improve civics education, while critics claim requirements like this only create additional barriers.[x] While recent elections have seen increased engagement among youth,[xi] in the most recent assessment, less than a quarter of eighth-graders performed at or above the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (“NAEP”) civics exam – with no improvement over the 2014 numbers and only slightly higher than a full decade earlier.[xii]

Once formed, ACE was brought under the umbrella of the Government & Public Sector Lawyers Section of the Idaho State Bar as a service project. Through the Section, ACE is able to avail itself of the resources of the Idaho State Bar and the Idaho Law Foundation to support its efforts. The Section provides the funding for ACE to sponsor its annual fundraiser – Hilarity for Charity – discussed previously.

ACE focuses on promoting civic education in Idaho and, specifically, on encouraging members of the Idaho State Bar to become involved in, and support, civic education programs. To be as effective as possible, and to avoid duplication of efforts, ACE is committed to working with, and supporting the efforts of other entities with similar projects including the Idaho Law Foundation’s Law Related Education Committee, the University of Idaho College of Law, and the Federal and State Courts.

Initially, ACE primarily engaged in recruiting volunteers and raising funds to benefit two civics education programs in Idaho: We The People and Project Citizen. Both are programs of the Center for Civic Education. Today, ACE also engages in raising and administering funds for other activities such as Continuing Legal Education (CLEs), student competitions, and content creation, and in helping obtain grant funding, providing grant administration support, and developing and presenting the programming for the Idaho Journalists’ Institute on Law-Related Civic Education and the Idaho Teachers’ Institute on Law-Related Civic Education.

Retrospective and Evolution of ACE’s Efforts

Let’s take a look back at how ACE went from those origins to the several activities it now helps.

We The People features a curriculum on the history and principles of the United States constitutional democratic republic. State programs conduct local teacher professional development, hold conferences, and organize local and state simulated congressional hearings for elementary and secondary students. ACE still supports We The People today.

Project Citizen is for middle and high school students. It engages students in monitoring and influencing public policy. Students work in groups to identify a public policy issue, research its causes, and propose solutions. Students document the results in a detailed written portfolio with visual aids.

ACE’s first fundraiser was a campaign called An Hour For Civics in 2015. Modeled after a similar program by the Indiana State Bar, the premise of the campaign was for every member of the Idaho State Bar to donate either an hour of their time to civics education or a dollar amount equal to their hourly billable rate. In 2016, ACE decided to add a little fun to the fundraising and shifted to “Hilarity for Charity.”

The Current Four Civics-Education Programs Supported by ACE

By 2015, ACE was also formally supporting Idaho Mock Trial which it continues to support today. Idaho Mock Trial is a program of the Idaho State Bar’s Law Related Education Committee.

Idaho Mock Trial includes a high school mock trial competition which teaches students in Grades 9-12 about the law and the legal system by participating in a simulated trial. Working with attorney and teacher coaches, participants prepare a hypothetical legal case and learn about our legal system while they develop important critical thinking, research, and presentation skills. Then, in real courtrooms, mock trial teams present their cases in front of a panel of judges and jury members (real judges and attorneys).

From opening statements through closing arguments, each team has its own attorneys and witnesses and must be prepared to try both sides of the case. The competition also includes a courtroom artist contest, to allow artistically talented students the opportunity to participate in the mock trial program. Artists observe trials and submit sketches that depict actual courtroom scenes. In addition to the high school competition, Idaho Mock Trial is working to expand the program to middle schools.

The third program that ACE supports is Youth in Government. Youth in Government is a program of the Idaho YMCA. YMCA Youth in Government is an in-depth educational program that teaches high school students how to be active citizens through a nine-month, interactive experience where they directly participate in the processes of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Idaho State Government.

Students simulate and fulfill the roles and responsibilities of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Youth in Government program participants are actively immersed in civil engagement through developing skills in properly writing bills, parliamentary procedure, moot court competitions, lobbying, and even electing official officers including the Governor, Chief Justice, Appellate Judges, and more.

As school and YMCA groups compete and hold workshops at local Regional Conventions, they work on preparing for the final State Convention held in Boise each year at the State Capitol Building. Youth participants can earn awards, scholarships, or even go on to participate nationally at the Conference of National Affairs representing all Idaho Youth in Government delegates.[xiii] Idaho has participated in Youth in Government for over 75 years.

Last year, ACE added a fourth program: Know Your Government (“KYG”). KYG is a national program of 4-H – a youth development program of the United States Department of Agriculture whose name stands for Head, Heart, Hands, and Health. The KYG program has a mission of empowering youth to be well-informed citizens who are actively engaged in their communities and the world.

ACE supports the University of Idaho Extension with the annual KYG Conference, which is held over President’s Day weekend in Boise while the legislature is in session. Student can attend judicial workshops, including participation in a mock trial and sentencing, or be assigned as legislators or lobbyists to work on bills and conduct a mock legislative session.​[xiv]

Each project is warmly received by students and teachers alike. ACE volunteers enjoy participating in these events, students enjoy the unique learning opportunities, and teachers appreciate support to make learning fun.

Additional Efforts and Conclusion

ACE has grown in many other ways in recent years. Since 2018, ACE has supported the Institute for Secondary School Teachers and the Institute for Journalists. The Institute for Secondary School Teachers is targeted to teachers of government, history, and social studies. Their purpose is to enhance teachers’ understanding of the judicial branch of government at national and state levels and to motivate teachers to return to the classroom with new ideas and share that information with their students.[xv]

The Institute for Journalists is a partnership of ACE, the University of Idaho’s College of Law, and the Idaho Press Club. The institute focuses on journalists’ vital role in civic education, with emphasis on explaining the work of an independent, impartial judiciary and on illuminating the Rule of Law in media reports of court decisions.[xvi]

In its early years, ACE also helped host a Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) course for Constitution Day with Concordia University Law School to satisfy its requirement to host programming for Constitution Day. Constitution Day is a federal observance that recognizes the adoption of the United States Constitution.

It is normally observed on September 17, the day in 1787 that delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the document. A law establishing the present holiday was created in 2004 and mandates that all publicly funded educational institutions provide educational programming about the Constitution on that day. For the past two years, ACE has resurrected its Constitution Day CLE with panel discussions on the First Amendment. Like the previous two years, ACE will be providing a Constitution Day CLE in the Idaho State Capitol’s Lincoln Auditorium this September.

More recently, ACE has hosted a Civics Essay Competition for middle school students. In 2021 and 2022, dozens of students submitted essays and ACE awarded cash prizes to three winners and their schools each year. Generous support for the prizes has been provided by the Fourth District Bar Association.[xvii]

During the pandemic, ACE member Wendy Olsen identified the need for pre-recorded videos of instruction on the Law Related Education Committee’s Turning 18 in Idaho curriculum and a committee worked with University of Idaho law students to create a dozen short videos on the topics in the curriculum so that teachers and students could easily access them. Most recently, ACE has started a project to create other videos for Idaho teachers and students to easily access and learn about important civics topics such as the rule of law, Native American and tribal sovereignty and law, and the legislative process.

A Thank You

In the 10 years since ACE was created, The Advocate has featured at least 10 articles about the group, our history, and the programs we support. As we celebrate our 10^th anniversary, I look forward to the next decade of We The People, Mock Trial, Youth in Government, Know Your Government, and a renewed interest in civics among our youth. I also hope that this milestone anniversary encourages bar members to help support this important foundation of our society.

---

---

[i] http://www.attorneysforciviceducation.org/.

[ii] https://oconnorlibrary.org/speeches-writings/women-and-leadership-boise-state-university.

[iii] Id.

[iv] https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/Legacy-Project-Master-List.pdf.

[v] https://isb.idaho.gov/member-services/programs-resources/iall/.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Don Burnett, Civic Education, the Rule of Law, and the Judiciary: “A Republic … If You Can Keep It”, 58 Advocate 26 (2015).

[viii] A list of 2023’s generous donors can be found on the ACE website: http://www.attorneysforciviceducation.org/news.html.

[ix] https://www.sde.idaho.gov/academic/civics/.

[x] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-civics-education/.

[xi] https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center.

[xii] https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/civics/.

[xiii] https://www.ymcatvidaho.org/youth-in-government/.

[xiv] https://www.uidaho.edu/extension/4h/events/know-your-government.

[xv] https://www.uidaho.edu/law/outreach/teacher-ed.

[xvi] http://www.attorneysforciviceducation.org/institute-for-journalists.html.

[xvii] https://www.uidaho.edu/law/outreach/ace-civics.