Why Listen to Me & Roadmap

Family law problems are like car trouble and unwelcome houseguests: surprising, expensive, and impossible to ignore. Having hired family law attorneys before, during, and after law school, I bring both client and practitioner perspectives to the question of how Idaho can improve family law practice for consumers and attorneys alike.

Tailoring Idaho’s ethical, civil, and family procedural rules to support unbundled legal services would ease the pressure of full-service representation on attorneys, give litigants greater control over their cases, and assist judges by reducing ambiguity in filings prepared by self-represented parties, especially in the age of OpenAI. States across the country have quietly updated their civil and family law rules to accommodate limited-scope representation. Idaho should do the same.

This article explores relevant ethical and procedural rules and offers practical guidance for attorneys navigating Unbundled Legal Services (also known as limited representation) while expanding access to direct, licensed, expert, accountable, and professionally trained legal assistance.

Attorney–client relationships are governed first by the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct (IRPC). The Preamble identifies four roles lawyers may perform: advisor, evaluator, advocate, and negotiator.[i] While the IRPC vests clients with authority over the scope of representation, family law practice often presumes attorneys will fill all four roles throughout a case. If clients understood these roles and could choose among them, many could preserve more financial resources when exiting a relationship.

Trends Across States vs Current Ethics Rules

Many states now expressly offer unbundled legal services. The ABA described Unbundled Legal Services  as where “(1) clients receive only the advice and services they need and therefore pay a more affordable overall fee; (2) lawyers expand their client base by reaching those who cannot afford full-service representation but have the means for some services; and (3) courts benefit from greater efficiency when otherwise self-represented litigants receive [limited legal assistance].”[ii]

States currently offering unbundled legal services have addressed both restricted court appearances and attorney assistance with drafting pleadings while preserving pro se status.

Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 81(d) requires attorneys to file notices specifying the scope of representation and mandates a closing protocol that includes providing clients with pending deadlines, including hearing dates and times.[iii] Maine allows a single notice for discrete issues without repeated withdrawal motions.[iv]

Colorado permits attorneys to assist pro se litigants with drafting, so long as filings disclose the lawyer’s identity and contact information; signing requirements are triggered only by courtroom appearances.[v] Florida provides similar drafting authorization and also requires service on both the attorney and the party.[vi] Hawaii and Kansas require simple disclosures that filings were prepared with licensed assistance, and Hawaii offers sample limited appearance contracts.[vii]

These models demonstrate workable frameworks Idaho could adapt.

Under IRPC, clients control both the objective and means of representation. IRPC 1.2(a) specifically vests clients with control over the scope of representation.[viii] IPRC 1.4 requires consultation with the client on how that representation is pursued, yet family law often presumes that the attorney will fill all four roles.[ix]

There are further rules that support unbundled legal services. IPRC 1.2(c) authorizes limited representation where reasonable and supported by informed consent. Comment 6 notes that clients may take on representations that “exclude actions that the client thinks are too costly…” even where those methods “might otherwise be used to accomplish a client’s objectives.”[x] Comment 7 acknowledges that some clients may seek brief advice, but notes an attorney must ensure that they take enough time with the client to “yield reliable advice.”[xi]

IPRC 8.4 governs attorney misconduct. Although the rule does not expressly address ghostwriting, ethics authorities generally define it as drafting pleadings for pro se litigants without disclosure.[xii] The Annotated Model Rules describe ghostwriting as an attorney preparing documents for a self-represented party “without disclosing the lawyer’s role to the court, adverse party, or opposing counsel.”[xiii]

Most ethics opinions conclude that ghostwriting, standing alone, does not violate Rule 8.4(c). The concern is whether nondisclosure misleads the court or opposing parties.[xiv] Ghostwriting becomes unethical when it is used to exploit the leniency afforded to pro se litigants, when the representation is not truly limited, when the lawyer effectively controls the pleadings or litigation strategy, or when the lawyer creates the false impression that the litigant lacks substantial legal assistance.[xv] Other jurisdictions, including Alaska and Hawaii, offer workable models that preserve attorney accountability while permitting drafting assistance.[xvi]

Despite these ethical rules already in place to protect clients in an unbundled legal services scenario, Idaho currently lacks procedural rules governing paid limited-scope representation or attorney-assisted pro se filings.

Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure (IRFLP) 111(a) requires paid attorneys to file a motion and obtain a hearing to withdraw from a case.[xvii] However, Rule 207(c) allows a pro-bono attorney to limit their appearance proactively and to enter a case by filing a “notice of limited appearance specifying all matters that are to be undertaken on behalf of the party.”[xviii] It also allows pro bono attorneys to withdraw by filing a notice of completion without the need for a court’s leave.[xix] IRFLP 220 allows paid attorneys to withdraw without leave of the court in Civil Protection Order cases.[xx]

The rules do not expressly prohibit paid attorneys from limiting representation; they simply provide streamlined procedures only for pro bono counsel. IRFLP 207 does not use the word “only” to clarify in any way that paid attorneys may not engage in limited appearances.[xxi] To interpret it that way would create a conflict between the Professional Conduct Rules and the Procedural Rules and would interfere with the business relationship and the parties’ power as consumers.

Also, IRFLP 213, the rule governing signatures on pleadings, does not prohibit a client from seeking legal support in drafting or organizing pleadings.[xxii] It, however, does not provide a mechanism for attorneys to disclose their involvement without entering a full appearance.[xxiii]

Why Idaho Resists Unbundled Services & Why It’s Wrong

A rule fix is needed to allow attorneys to assist without appearing, while also avoiding anonymity.  Drafting pleadings for a client without filing or arguing them in court can be problematic, and the risks increase with the complexity and contentiousness of an issue.

Attorneys can assist pro-se litigants in filling out court forms and even in drafting motions for relief. However, Idaho does not permit an attorney to sign or file a pleading they helped prepare without formally entering their full appearance in the case.[xxiv] Some judges have even suggested that filing any documents in a case bearing an attorney’s name should be treated as entering an appearance.

When that interpretation is combined with IRFLP 111’s withdrawal requirements, an attorney could be required to move the court to withdraw several weeks or even months before trial to allow sufficient time for the court to schedule and hear the motion.[xxv] As a result, under the current framework, when attorneys assist pro se litigants with drafting forms or motions, the clients must file the documents themselves. This leaves attorneys unable to ensure that no substantive edits are made that could result in misrepresentation.

Some judges are concerned that attorneys will use this loophole to get around the ethics rules and that they’ll have no one to hold accountable if an attorney fails to conduct sufficient or accurate research or makes misleading or unsupported claims. Judges were also concerned that attorneys could remain in the background as a strategy to take advantage of the additional leniency afforded to pro-se parties. Yet today’s budget-conscious litigants increasingly rely on unaccountable AI systems to help them file their court requests. To preserve public trust in civil courts, lawyers must adapt to providing people with access to licensed direct advice within whatever scope clients can afford.

Opposing counsel could have grounds to fear violating IRPC 4.2’s prohibition against communicating with parties the attorney “knows” to be represented when a pro se litigant submits professional-looking but unsigned filings.[xxvi] However, currently, under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 11.4 and IRFLP 207, until an attorney files an appearance with the court, the person remains unrepresented, which will not violate IRPC rules.[xxvii] Those two rules concern pro bono appearances, but can also be applied similarly in the concept of paid attorney limited appearances.

Besides, given that the alternative nowadays is for pro se applicants to use unreliable AI bots for their filings, Idaho needs a rule change. The rule change should allow paid attorneys to unbundle their services and to identify themselves as drafting for and advising a party, without threatening the party’s authority to limit the attorney’s scope to exclude presenting in court. Judges would permit attorneys to file into cases without risking entering their appearance for the entire case. This will help ensure better outcomes for families and judges who will be less bogged down by AI slop or by confident but confused pro se litigants.

How to Work Around the Problems

Attorneys remain the gold standard for legal advice. Unbundled services become problematic only when providers attempt to evade professional obligations. The following practices help attorneys remain compliant.

1. Attorneys must obtain informed consent. Attorneys must use detailed written agreements that list each service and include the client’s initials. They must also provide a document to clients that weighs the costs and benefits, and that explains that limited representation is reasonable under the circumstances.

2. Attorneys should consider advising only. Legal coaching, without drafting, can significantly improve outcomes. Judges cannot grant relief unless parties request it, and pro se litigants often do not know what to ask for. Attorneys can guide clients through statutes and court forms, including requests for temporary support or fee sharing under Idaho’s divorce statutes.

3. Attorneys should consider drafting roles. If an attorney uses drafting without appearing, agreements should require the inclusion of the attorney’s name, bar number, and contact information on pleadings, prohibit client edits, and include indemnification provisions. In this instance, attorneys should also transmit documents in non-editable formats.

Disclosure will then reduce ghostwriting risk, even if it increases the chance of being drawn into the case. Attorneys may also authorize opposing counsel to communicate directly with clients.

Drafting should be used only for uncontested or straightforward matters. If issues require legal argument or raise concerns about client candor or competence, attorneys must file a notice of limited appearance and expand the engagement.

4. Attorneys should consider assisting with initial filings and immediately withdraw. Attorneys may help file initial documents and immediately withdraw, providing quality control while distinguishing licensed assistance from unauthorized practice.

Attorneys should file the withdrawal motions well before trial. Courts will retain discretion, particularly near trial, but the client’s authority over the scope must remain paramount. Judges generally should not compel continued representation absent good cause. Judges should avoid requiring lawyers representing a client on a limited capacity to remain in the case against the party’s will, as it would discourage attorneys from offering any unbundled services at all. Unless an attorney is negligent in filing a quick withdrawal, judges should abide by the attorney’s limited agreement with the client.

6. Attorneys must preserve work products, document communications, and drafts. Limited representation is still evolving in Idaho, and attorneys should be prepared to demonstrate ethical compliance if disputes arise.

7. Judges should defer to the parties’ authority to define the scope of representation. Courts should respect a party’s right to decide which legal services to purchase and for how long. When an attorney expressly states that a pleading is filed pursuant to a limited-scope agreement, explains the scope of representation, and authorizes opposing counsel to communicate directly with the party, the court should recognize the candor and accountability that such disclosure provides. Courts should avoid effectively penalizing attorneys or parties by compelling continued representation and imposing costs beyond the agreed scope. [je1] 

8. IRFLP should expressly permit paid limited appearances and provide clear withdrawal procedures. Objections to completion of the agreed-upon representation should be allowed only for good cause shown, to prevent strategic delays or unnecessary depletion of fees.

Courts should also permit attorneys to seek costs and fees when withdrawal objections are misused. The rule should further provide that, when a notice of limited appearance clearly defines the triggering event, withdrawal occurs automatically upon completion.

Finally, service should continue on both the party and the limited-scope attorney to reduce confusion and ensure transparency.

Current Development and Hope for Unbundled Legal Services

Several members of the bar have been working on a proposed amendment to IRFLP 207(c). However, this process is in its infancy and is not yet ready for formal consideration or even adaptation.  [RR2] 

As this process moves forward, Idaho should look to neighboring Colorado, which has maintained a comprehensive limited-scope representation rule since 1999.[xxviii] Colorado’s rule addresses both limited-time representations and drafting-only representations. Given its longevity, comprehensiveness, and practical application, a version of that framework could provide Idaho with a tested and workable model.  

Conclusion

Educating clients on how to mindfully and economically consume legal services is an essential duty that attorneys have to their clients. This is especially important in a divorce matter, where one of the goals of representation is to ensure our clients’ access to the couple’s financial resources. Increasing the flexibility of the scope of legal services we may take on, if done well, should give our clients a sense of control that will translate to more positive attorney-client interactions and provide more sensible filings in court for judges.

Jen Neyenhouse, Esq. is an Idaho Supreme Court Approved Civil and Child Custody Mediator and Idaho solo-practitioner. She graduated from Vermont Law School in 2018, practiced in Vermont until 2021 when she moved to Idaho with her daughter.

[i] Idaho Rules of Pro. Conduct pmbl. ¶ 2.

[ii] Delivery of Legal Services, Am. Bar Ass’n, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/delivery_legal_services/resources/

 (last visited Feb. 4, 2026).

[iii]  Alaska R. Civ. P. 81.

[iv] Me. R. Civ. P. 11(b) & advisory committee’s note to 2001 amend. (July 1, 2001) (“The attorney need not file a motion to withdraw unless the attorney seeks to withdraw from the limited appearance itself. The attorney is responsible under Rule 11 (a) only for those filings signed by the attorney.”).

[v] Colo. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (1999).

[vi] Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.040(d).

[vii] Haw. R. Dist. Ct. 11.1(c); Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 115A(c) (stating that unless the assistance was rendered in connection with a nonprofit or government program, Kansas Supreme Court Rules Rule 115A(c).  Kansas allows attorneys to “help a party prepare” filings, so long as it says, “prepared with the assistance of a Kansas licensed attorney.”)

[viii] Idaho R. Pro. Conduct r. 1.2.

[ix] Idaho R. Pro. Conduct r. 1.4.

[x]  Idaho R. Pro. Conduct r. 1.2 cmt. 6.

[xi]  Idaho R. Pro. Conduct r. 1.2 cmt. 7 (stating limiting representation to a brief phone call works, as long as the purpose is simply to secure general information about the law the client needs in order to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem.)

[xii] Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 8.4 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2020) (Annotated).

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] See, e.g., Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268, 1272–73 (10th Cir. 2001) (finding that ghostwriting in certain instances constitutes a “misrepresentation to this court”).

[xv] Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 8.4 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2020) (Annotated) (citing N.J. Advisory Comm. on Pro. Ethics Op. 713 (2008)).

[xvi]  Alaska R. Pro. Conduct r. 1.2(c); Alaska R. Civ. P. 81(d); Alaska Bar Ass’n Ethics Op. 93-1 (1993); Haw. R. Dist. Ct. 11.1(c).

[xvii] Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 111(a).

[xviii] Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 207(c).

[xix] Id.

[xx] Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 220.

[xxi] Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 207(c).

[xxii] Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure 213.

[xxiii] Id.

[xxiv] Idaho R. Civ. P. 11; Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 213.

[xxv] Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 111

[xxvi] Idaho R. Pro. Conduct r. 4.2.

[xxvii] Idaho R. Civ. P. 11.4; Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 207.

[xxviii] Colo. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (1999).