Elvis; Richard Nixon; The Godfather; The Idaho State Bar; The Idaho Law Foundation.  I am fairly confident that this article marks the first time, and likely the last, that these five items appear in the same list. What do they have in common? They all made a mark on the 1970s.  Elvis left the public stage in 1977. In the face of impeachment, Richard Nixon resigned in 1974—the first American president to do so. In 1972, the now classic film The Godfather premiered.[1] That same year, a controversy began to brew in the Idaho State Bar, albeit one that was comparatively milder than any controversy in the Corleone family.

Controversy Surrounding the Idaho State Bar Exam[2]

In the Fall of 1972, 86 candidates took the Idaho Bar Exam. Only 38 examinees were successful—a pass rate of only 45 percent. Twenty-five of the 48 unsuccessful applicants petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for review. Although the Court denied the petitioners relief as to their individual status, on January 22, 1973, the Court ordered the Idaho State Bar to review the content, administration, and grading of the Fall 1972 Idaho State Bar Examination.

To accomplish this review, the Court appointed three special masters with a Supreme Court staff member (Lon Davis) serving as secretary for the review committee. The special masters included Lawrence Denney, the then-dean of the Willamette University College of Law; Francis Marshall, the chairman of the Examination Committee for the California State Bar; and John A. Carver, Jr., a professor of law from Denver University College of Law who was also a member of the Idaho State Bar. The Court’s order directed the special masters to submit a report regarding its recommended findings and conclusions on two specific issues:

1. Whether the Board of Commissioners of the Idaho State Bar acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or malicious manner in preparing and administering the Fall 1972 Bar Examination so that it was not reasonably designed to test and determine the professional competence of applicant for admission to the practice of law in the State of Idaho; or
2. Whether the Board of Commissioners of the Idaho State Bar or its Bar examiners acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or malicious manner in grading the Fall 1972 Bar Examination.

The Court’s order gave the special masters the authority to conduct discovery, hearings, and investigations, and to compel the attendance of witnesses in accordance with the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. It appears the special masters completed their investigation and review sometime before March 13, 1973, at which time the Court entered an order admitting 34 of the 48 unsuccessful applicants from the Fall 1972 Bar Exam. This number was based on a formula recommended in the special masters’ report, which the Court employed as a remedial measure to determine a passing score.[3] This calculation encompassed more than the 25 applicants who petitioned for relief and resulted in candidates passing with “less than 1950 points on their exams” while candidates who scored 1955 points and 1971 2/3 points still failed. Pursuant to a petition by the Board of Commissioners, the Court cured this inequitable result and granted admission to these two candidates.

Notwithstanding the language in the March 13, 1973 Order finding “no caprice or malice” in the administration or grading of the Fall 1972 Bar Exam, the Court’s order was not without its critics. John H. Bengtson, the President-elect of the Idaho State Bar at the time the order was issued voiced his opposition in an article appearing in the March 1973 issue of The Advocate.[4] Bengston equated the Court’s action to a star chamber, noting feelings of “frustration or helplessness” by the Board of Commissioners in relation to the special masters’ conduct.  Bengtson noted that the Board of Commissioners did “not know how often the ‘special masters’ met, what facts they considered in evaluating the August 1972, bar exam, or what experience they had in preparing and grading bar examinations in other states.” He further observed that “[n]either the Board of Commissioners nor the Examining Committee of the Idaho State Bar was requested to appear before the special masters or present them with any facts,” nor did the special masters “confer informally” with any of the Commissioners.

In light of the Court’s March 13, 1973 Order, on March 21, 1972, the Board of Commissioners petitioned the Court and requested cancellation of the April 1973 exam, citing changes to “the standards and rules governing the preparation, giving and grading of Bar examinations” that had “evidently been changed, modified and amended to a degree” that had not been “made known to the Board of Commissioners.” Moreover, the Board of Commissioners noted that, as a result of the Court’s decision, the proposed questions that had been prepared for the April 1973 exam “would not be acceptable.” However, the spring bar exam was offered and graded using temporary standards; the pass rate for that exam was 81 percent.[5]

By the time of the annual meeting in July 1973, tensions over the aftermath of the Fall 1972 Bar Exam had subsided. It was reported that the Board of Commissioners’ relationship with the Court was “fine.” Commissioner Mitchell observed: “They have been gentlemen with us; we hope we have been with them.”[6]

The rest of the 1970s were comparatively mild; a few of the highlights from that decade are detailed in the following.

The Code of Professional Responsibility

At the 1970 Annual Meeting, reference was made to study of the Professional Responsibility Code with a warning that Idaho may end up being the “fiftieth state to accept it” at the next annual meeting.[7] The warning was heeded, and at the 1971 Annual Meeting, there was a lengthy discussion of the Professional Responsibility Code, modified to “strengthen the role of the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho as the ultimate authority with respect to the practice of law here and with respect to the judicial system here.”[8] One item that was deleted from the model version of the Code was making an objectionable fee subject to an ethical dispute; a peer review system was adopted instead.[9] The ABA Model Professional Conduct Rules were later adopted in the mid-1980s, making Idaho the 16^th state to do so.

Commissioner Eugene Thomas, who worked on the modified version of the Code referred to it as a “splendid document.”[10] Commissioner Thomas noted the modified Code made it “so that no Idaho lawyer will go to any other State and bring shame or embarrassment upon this profession or upon—to a victim of unethical conduct with impunity.”[11] Commissioner Thomas thought it would be a “great day in our history when we adopt this Code.”[12] That “great day” happened upon a passing vote at the 1971 Annual Meeting after which Bar President Eugene Miller said the American Bar Association could be advised that “Idaho is now in the Code of Professional Responsibility area.”[13]

Limited Licensure for Third-Year Law Students

The concept of limited licenses for third-year law students was introduced at the 1971 Annual Meeting.  Albert R. Menard, the then Dean of the University of the Idaho College of Law, presented in support of a limited license[14] for third-year law students. Dean Menard explained that a limited license presented an opportunity to give law students with two years of law school the opportunity to participate in a “transitional, education device.”[15] According to Dean Menard, as of 1971, 36 other states had authorized limited licenses in this context. Dean Menard assured the Board of Commissioners that there would be sufficient “supervisory safeguards,” including oversight by a supervisor from the law school, a licensed supervising attorney, the Idaho State Bar, the Idaho Supreme Court, and “the Judge before whom he’s appearing.” The minutes were sure to reflect that Dean Menard was smiling when, in response to the level of oversight, he commented: “I really feel somewhat sorry for him.”[16]    

Legal Aid in Idaho

The 1970 Annual Meeting included a discussion of legal aid services in Idaho. At that time, there was an Idaho State Bar Association Legal Aid and Services Committee. The Committee’s report for 1970 indicated that it had studied “the problem of providing legal aid to indigent persons in Idaho.” Idaho then had “two legal aid programs funded under the Office of Economic Opportunity [OEO].”[17] A request for additional funds from the OEO was made to support legal aid services in Elmore and Ada Counties, which services were being provided by volunteers. The request sought approval for funding two full-time attorneys. The Fifth Judicial District also submitted a funding request to OEO.[18]

In 1971, Bar President Miller reported that he had visited Washington, D.C. and met with two members of the OEO regarding Idaho’s legal aid funding request. Although the two OEO individuals Miller met with were “very interested” in the program and viewed it as a potential “pilot program that they could take in a small State with large geographical problems,” within thirty days of Miller’s return to Idaho, President Nixon “saw fit to change the employment of these two individuals” and “cut off the Federal funds.”[19] As a result, there was a proposed resolution to continue to study the future of legal aid in Idaho.[20]

Idaho Law Foundation

Since 2025 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Idaho Law Foundation, you have likely concluded that the Foundation was established in 1975. The Foundation’s mission is to “support[] the right of all people to live in a peaceful community” by educating “all people about the role of law in a democratic society,” by “provid[ing] opportunities for people to avoid and resolve conflicts,” and by “enhanc[ing] the education and competence of lawyers.”[21] Attorneys Allyn Dingel and Jess Hawley took the lead on the initial fundraising efforts to support the Foundation.[22] In 1977, the Board of Commissioners approved including an optional provision on the license fee statement to contribute $10.00 to the Foundation.[23]

Letter Size v. Legal Size

While it is true that, in comparison to the 1972–1973 controversy regarding the Bar Exam, the 1970s were comparatively mild for the Idaho State Bar, I did stumble upon another heated debate taking place in 1972. A resolution was presented at the 1972 Annual Meeting for the Idaho State Bar to “approve and diligently strive to implement the changes necessary to require the use of letter-size paper at all levels of the legal process.”[24] Many insults were flung at the extra three vertical inches attributable to legal-size paper. Such insults included calling legal-size paper the “last vestige of an anachronism of the big paper,” a “habit going back to the days when documents were blue-backed and folded four times in order to be put in a pigeonhole of a roll-top desk,” and simply “archaic.”[25]

The representative from the Economics Committee thought it “ridiculous for lawyers to have large files, to have large folders, to spend the extra money for the wasted space” and suggested that he thought the change “would be welcomed by the courts and by everybody, except the paper sellers and the big-file sellers.”[26] Plus, “the automatic typewriter era” was coming to town. And, although it was still unclear how to “feed the paper into those machines,” the paper suppliers were able to provide “standard letter-size continuous forms so you don’t have to stuff carbon and paper into your typewriter all the time.” Not to mention letter-size continuous paper was “cheaper than single sheets of paper and single sheets of carbon paper” and certainly cheaper than legal-sized paper.[27] There was even talk of conducting a survey,[28] and talk of a future requiring single-space typing since the quill and pen “flourishes” that needed double-spacing were a thing of the past.[29] The assault on legal-sized paper prevailed and, with “[a] chorus of ‘Ayes,’” the resolution passed.[30] The rest, as they say, is history.  Or something like that.

Conclusion

It seems appropriate to start where I began—with Elvis. As Elvis (sort of) said in his famous lyrics from his 1977 hit, My Way: “and now, the end [of this article] is near.” Whatever challenges the Idaho State Bar and Idaho Law Foundation have faced in the past and may face in its future, both organizations and their members have grown stronger for it. It is often said, and I am often reminded (including in the course of my research for this article), that Idaho has a small Bar. But “my friend, I’ll say it clear,” it also has a mighty Bar. I am proud to be counted among the membership of the Bar and the Foundation. Stay tuned for the 1980s.

Judge Jessica M. Lorello is an Idaho native who graduated from Boise High School. She received a master’s degree in health care administration and her Juris Doctor degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. After law school, she worked in private practice until 2004 when she joined the Criminal Law Division of the Idaho Attorney General’s Office. Governor Otter appointed Judge Lorello to the Idaho Court of Appeals in 2017. Judge Lorello is also an adjunct professor at the University of Idaho College of Law, is a member of the Law Related Education Committee of the Idaho Law Foundation and is a founding member of Attorneys for Civic Education.

[1] Timeline of the 1970s | Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/story/timeline-of-the-1970s (last visited April 16, 2025).

[2] Information from the controversy surrounding the Fall 1972 Bar Exam was obtained from the January 1973 and March 1973 issues of The Advocate. Many thanks to Maureen Braley, Executive Director of the Idaho State Bar, for uncovering these sources for me. 

[3] The calculation added “a factor equal to one-third of the difference between the assigned grade and 85, (the midpoint of the passing-score range).”

[4] John H. Bengtson, Court Orders Review of Bar Examination, 16 The Advocate 1 (1973).

[5] See Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Business Session (1973), pp.15-16.

[6] Id. at 17.

[7] Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Volume XLIV, p.25.

[8] Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Volume XLV, p.22.

[9] See Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Business Session (1972), p.16.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 23.

[12] Id. at 24.

[13] Id. at 96.

[14] The 1971 meeting transcript uses “legal intern” and “limited license.”  During the voting phase of the annual meeting, Bar President Miller indicated that “limited license” was changed to “qualified permit” due to an objection from the Idaho Supreme Court with respect to using the term “license.”  Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Volume XLV, p.98.   

[15] Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Volume XLV, p.40.

[16] Id. at 41.

[17] Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Volume XLIV, p.6.

[18] Id. at 7.

[19] Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Volume XLV at 75.

[20] Id.

[21]  About Us, Idaho Law Foundation, https://ilf.idaho.gov/about-us/ (last visited April 16, 2025).

[22] Idaho State Bar Board of Commissioner Meeting Minutes, May 30, 1975.

[23] Idaho State Bar Board of Commissioner Meeting Minutes, May 21, 1977.

[24] Proceedings of the Idaho State Bar, Business Session (1972), p.82.

[25] Id. at pp.83-84.

[26] Id. at p.84.

[27] Id. at p.85.

[28] Id.

[29] Id. at 86.

[30] Id. at 87.