R. Jonathan Shirts

Published May 2022

The American Bar Association’s Mid-Year Meeting was held from February 9^th through the 14^th. What was supposed to be a renewed in-person gathering hosted by the wet and wonderful city of Seattle was once again moved to the virtual realm due to the cresting wave of the Omicron variant. Thankfully, that wave has passed and expectations are that the Annual Meeting in Chicago, scheduled for August 3^rd through 9^th, will be able to return in-person once again.

I am brand new to this role as the Idaho State Bar Delegate to the ABA’s House of Delegates, so please indulge the brief moment of self-introduction. Unlike many of you, but similar to many others, I did not begin my path as a lawyer until later in life. I had been searching for a career that would allow me to help people on an individual level, something I thought I had found early on in education, at least until I realized halfway through my student teaching that I was not a fan of the internal politicking and over-zealous parenting forced on teachers. I pivoted to higher education, but soon found myself trapped behind a wall of numbers, none of which I felt reflected my ability to engage and interact with individual students. So, after 10 years of prodding from my wife’s aunt, a retired Judge, I took the LSAT leap and was accepted at the University of Idaho, then started law school one month before my youngest son was born.

Before I started, I was encouraged to seek out and join the ABA, which I did. Then, a month into my 1L year, the opportunity presented itself to run for election as the school’s ABA Representative. I threw my name in the hat and was elected to a student body office for the first time since elementary school. Looking back now, that was probably the most impactful thing I could have done for my career. I spent three years encouraging law students to join the ABA, and was elated when the Administration elected to enroll all law students as ABA Student Members near the end of my 2L year. Among other events, we were able to host the then-President of the ABA, Linda Klein, at the Boise Campus, and later hosted the past Chair of the ABA Judicial Division, Col. Linda Murnane, at both the Boise and Moscow campuses.

I also spent two years serving as the ABA’s Law Student Liaison to the Judicial Division, a role advocating for how members of the judiciary could reach out and partner with law students more effectively. That experience allowed me, a lowly law student from the University of Idaho, to sit in meetings with State Supreme Court Justices, Judges from State and Federal Courts of Appeals, and jurists who would later end up on the shortlist for the Supreme Court. I was also able to serve as the Vice-Chair for Membership and the Co-Chair for the Public Outreach, Education, and Service Committee of the Judicial Division’s Lawyer’s Conference. After graduation and passing the Bar, I became involved with the State Bar, serving on the Appellate Practice Section as an At-Large Council Member. So when the opportunity presented itself to serve as the State Bar Delegate for the Idaho State Bar, I jumped at the chance, even though I knew I had big shoes to fill as Judge Oths’ replacement.

I will admit that preparing for my first meeting was a bit daunting. Luckily, my ABA experiences had given me friendships with amazing lawyers around the country who were more than willing to give me advice about what to expect and how to prepare. The pivot from an in-person to a virtual meeting just one month before was an experience, but one that showed me that one of the strengths of the ABA is its flexibility.

The House of Delegates had a full agenda of 27 Resolutions, including two that were submitted a day before the House of Delegates meeting. Those Resolutions considered topics ranging from the plight of Afghan refugees to the presence of children in dependency proceedings. Many of the Resolutions were uncontroversial, including those encouraging Bar Examiners to provide rooms for lactating mothers during the Bar Exam, recommendations regarding oversight of nursing homes amid many guardianship scandals across the country, and asking for support for foster children aging out of the system to help prevent them from being homeless.

Those Resolutions considered topics ranging from the plight of Afghan refugees to the presence of children in dependency proceedings.

The House urged the current Administration to overhaul the immigration and asylum systems to promote fairness and transparency. The House also debated support for guidelines for both landlords and tenants in the current eviction crisis, eliminating bias in pre-trial risk-assessment tools, and methods of calculating the decennial census. Changes to law school curriculums were passed which will require law schools to have loan counseling and classes on bias and cross-cultural competency, along with additional support for students related to mental health and substance abuse disorders.

Among the more controversial Resolutions, however, were those submitted the weekend before the House of Delegates meeting, both involving voting rights. The first of the voting rights Resolutions asked whether the ABA should take an official position on voting rights legislation across the country that many are worried will lead to discrimination at the polls. In an earlier address to the House of Delegates, the ABA President, Reginald Turner, encouraged all members of the ABA to “oppose any barriers to fair and open elections and any subversion of the voting process.” Some members of the House felt the Resolution was submitted too late for adequate consideration, but those in favor of the Resolution emphasized that “time is of the essence” because Legislatures across the United States were debating these bills at that moment.

After that spirited debate, the House voted to support the ABA’s official position as one encouraging state legislators to oppose legislation that would introduce barriers to fair and open elections, and for allowing elections to remain nonpartisan and independent. The second voting rights Resolution was filed in response bi-partisan legislation being considered regarding amendments to the 1887 Electoral Count Act as a result of the rally-turned-mob that attacked the US Capitol on January 6^th, 2021 during the count of the Electoral College votes. Much of the opposition to this Resolution was also due to the lateness of its filing, not necessarily the Resolution itself, and the House passed this Resolution as well.

For a first-time Delegate, I was surprised, but encouraged, by both the diversity of the Resolutions’ topics, and the passionate debates on both sides of many of them. I didn’t know what to expect or what difference my lone voice could make, but I walked away from the meeting encouraged by what I saw and participated in. Over the next few months, the House of Delegates will be preparing for the Annual Meeting to be held in Chicago August 3^rd through 9^th. The incoming President of the ABA, the first Native American to hold this position, wants to encourage attorneys in non-metro areas to consider how the ABA can better support them.

The Young Lawyers Division will be submitting a Resolution encouraging the judiciary to allow more than one attorney to argue on a motion which would allow younger attorneys to gain invaluable experience in court. And a Resolution that was postponed on changes to the Lawyer Assistance Program Rules and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct allowing paralegals or other non-lawyers to give legal advice will be resubmitted. If you feel that these or any other ideas should, or should not be considered, contact your District’s Bar Commissioner or any of the other Idaho members of the House of Delegates: myself (r.jonathan.shirts@gmail.com); Jennifer M. Jensen, Idaho State Delegate (JMJensen@hollandhart.com); Anne Henderson, Idaho Young Lawyers Delegate (aeh@dukeevett.com); or Hon. Michael Oths, ABA Board of Governors (tcothsmj@adacounty.id.gov).

Gary L Cooper

Commissioner

Sixth and Seventh Districts

It excites me to read that we can look forward to getting back to normal.  It has been two long years since the COVID-19 pandemic changed our personal and professional lives.  Many people have been sickened and hospitalized; more than 900,000 people have died in the United States since the start of the pandemic in early 2020.  These are tragedies that none of us want to see repeated.  We weathered the Alpha variant, the Delta variant and, when we thought we had put COVID in our rearview mirror late last year, we were forced to shut down again by the Omicron variant.  Thankfully, Omicron cases rose suddenly and subsided nearly as dramatically. 

I am beginning to feel confident that we can finally get back to normal.  However, I am writing this column in March and it will not be published until May.  Of concern to me is that I just read that the BA.2 Omicron variant has been detected in the United States and it is more transmissible than previous variants.  I hope that I am not being too optimistic by allowing myself to think that we are going to be able to return to normal before we meet in Twin Falls, in person, for the Idaho State Bar Annual Meeting in July. 

However, what we remember as “normal” will not be the “new normal” when we finally transition out of COVID and get back to normal.  Our behavior was changed for two years and we will not go back to where we were in early 2020.  We learned involuntarily that “flexible” works in the workplace.  We do not have to be in the office to be successful lawyers.  Some of us want to be in an office because that is where we learned to be lawyers, but being in the office does not have to be the new normal for everybody.  We know now that we do not have to do everything in person.  We have learned that remote hearings, depositions, and mediations can be quite successful.  Use of remote technology will not disappear when the pandemic is behind us, nor should it. 

I am not an advocate for using technology to replace in-person lawyering to the extent we were forced to do so during the dark months of the pandemic.  There are just over 5,000 active lawyers in Idaho which means that in the area of law you practice you are highly likely to know most, if not all, the Idaho lawyers practicing in your area of expertise.  It is also very likely that you will work with those lawyers in your area of expertise multiple times during your career.  One of the things that makes it enjoyable to practice law in Idaho is the collegiality that we enjoy with each other. 

The close professional relationships we enjoy with other Idaho lawyers require personal contact.  Face-to-face meetings, hearings, negotiations, depositions, mediations, and other events are critical to maintain the level of professionalism that we all desire and expect.  So, my hope is that we do not let the “new normal” sacrifice in-person lawyering just because we learned we could use technology during the pandemic. 

As we return to normal, we should double down on finding ways to use technology to serve the thousands of Idaho citizens who are not able to afford lawyers.  If you read about judicial reform and access to justice initiatives in Idaho, and elsewhere, you may be shocked about the number of court filings in our courts where some of the parties are unrepresented by lawyers.  Idahoans regularly appear pro se in landlord/tenant litigation, consumer debt litigation, at protective order motion hearings, at infraction proceedings, on minor misdemeanor citations, and in child visitation/custody litigation.  I believe that these cases amount to as much as 80% or more of court filings.  The kind of litigation in which most of us are involved amounts to about 10% of the filings. 

To me such statistics are staggering.  Not because people do not use lawyers for these cases, but because the impression which significant numbers of Idahoans form about the judicial system are formed without the benefit of an advocate to help them navigate the challenges of being sued.  I am not suggesting that we figure out ways to get all pro se litigants a lawyer because that may take too long. 

What is necessary, in my opinion, is to figure out a better system of delivering justice for citizens involved in these kinds of cases and disputes so that those who are unrepresented can come to understand that the judicial system is fair and accessible for everyone.  While politicians and lawyers, in general, have been judged harshly by public opinion for years, the judicial branch has, I believe, maintained a high degree of respect.  Recently, I am afraid the judicial system has not fared as well. 

You can draw your own conclusions as to why that is, but the more important point is that we lawyers need to make certain everyone, even the person with the smallest case, can access the judicial system and come away feeling that they received a fair shake.  If we do not, we risk a majority of Idahoans losing respect for the judicial branch of government.  Our fellow citizens who suffer bad experiences with the court system when they are compelled to defend themselves in the kinds of cases previously described will buy into the narrative that the judicial system is broken or only works for the wealthy.  That is not the narrative that any of us wants popularized.      

I think technology may provide ways to resolve this problem.  The judicial system adjusted quickly to using platforms, like Zoom, to conduct difficult hearings and other litigation events remotely when the pandemic forced us to do so.  I think most people know how to use the internet to shop.  Those skills are sufficient to permit our judicial system and most people to use the internet and remote platforms to resolve consumer debt, landlord/tenant, and other common judicial system issues without going to the courthouse. 

I certainly do not have the aptitude or skills to figure out how we can use technology to solve access to justice issues, but I think if we encourage it, as part of the new normal, there are those who have the skills to improve our system of delivering justice in these kinds of cases.  As we return to normal, we have a great opportunity to insist that some of our access to justice problems be improved with technology.  I believe it is vital to maintaining confidence in our judicial system.  Personally, I hope we, as a profession, do not accept what we now have as adequate.

As we get back to normal, the Idaho State Bar staff and Bar Commissioners want to make sure that we are providing the right kind of services that are helpful to our members and the communities in which we practice.  At the Annual Meeting in Twin Falls this year from July 20^th – 22^nd, some of the staff and commissioners will convene at least four focus groups: (1) lawyers who have practiced less than 15 years; (2) lawyers who have practiced more than 35 years; (3) women lawyers; and (4) lawyers practicing solo or in firms of less than four lawyers.  We want to hear what you think we can do better to help you in your law practices and to serve the communities in which you practice.  As we return to normal, we want to make sure the “new normal” includes the kind of assistance from your membership in the Idaho State Bar which will be helpful to you and which you can use. 

If you are interested in participating in these focus groups, please email me at julie@cooper-larsen.com and I will let you know when and where we will be meeting.  I realize these focus groups do not include all member subgroups.  Do not worry.  We will be conducting more focus groups and town hall meetings in the coming months to give everybody a chance to weigh in.  You are also welcome to email me at gary@cooper-larsen.com with any suggestions.

Kristin Bjorkman Dunn

Commissioner

Fourth District

Published March/April 2022

As I prepared to write this message, I looked back at what I had previously written for the Commissioner’s Message.  How awkward if I were to write on a topic I had previously addressed!  What came of this exercise turned out to be a good laugh at the following lines from my message in the January 2021 issue of The Advocate: “At times it felt like it would never end.  The year that seemed to span a decade.  Yet here we are at the start of 2021.  Is that a worldwide collective sigh of relief I hear?” 

As 2021 dawned, I did not expect that any sigh of relief on my part would be short lived. Indeed, I had higher expectations of 2021 than what turned out to be a year that felt like a scene from the movie Groundhog Day.  Meetings and hearings via Zoom were still common if not the norm, masks continued to line the shelves at stores, and COVID protocols were still part of our everyday vernacular. Certainly, the pandemic was never welcome, but had it been, the welcome would have worn off long ago. 

My look back also got me thinking about the myriad effects the pandemic has left in its wake, one of which is the impact it has had on morale and well-being.  As reflected in the results of the 2021 Idaho State Bar Membership Survey, COVID-19 has been a menace to attorney well-being.  One of the questions posed by the survey was, “In what ways has the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected your practice?” and more than 40% of respondents selected “personal well-being.”  In fact, “personal well-being” received more votes than any other option.  A Bloomberg Law Survey reported in the June 2021 edition of the ABA Journal also contained disheartening statistics.  The survey disclosed that nearly half of lawyers acknowledged that their well-being declined over the first quarter of 2021. 

But this begs the question: just what is “well-being”?  In 2017, The Path to Lawyer Well-Being: Practical Recommendations for Positive Change, published by the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being, pointed out that well-being is not defined solely as an absence of dysfunction; nor is it limited to feeling “happy.” Full well-being is multi-dimensional and requires things like connection, belonging, continual growth, and aligning our lives with our values.

No matter what the pandemic has in store for us going forward, there are a number of practical steps lawyers can take to address well-being concerns.  Following is a brief excerpt from the steps identified in a report from the American Bar Association’s National Task Force on Lawyer Well Being.

Assess Well-Being.  Offices should collect and measure information about well-being stressors as well as lawyer and staff beliefs about well-being and organizational support for improving well-being to ascertain whether lawyers and staff perceive that their employer values and supports their well-being. 

Evaluate current policies and practices relating to well-being.  Make adjustments as necessary.  Seek input from all lawyers and staff in a safe and confidential manner.  Establish confidential reporting procedures for lawyers and staff to convey concerns.

Monitor for signs of poor self-care and work addiction.  Avoid rewarding extreme behaviors that can ultimately be harmful to one’s health.  Encourage lawyers to make time to care for themselves and attend to other personal obligations.  Physical activity can aid health and cognitive functioning.

Actively Combat Social Isolation.  Socializing helps individuals cope with stress and prevent negative consequences like burnout.    It counters feelings of isolation and disconnectedness.   

Educate.  Teach lawyers and staff about the benefits of well-being practices such as meditation and yoga.  Discuss the psychological challenges of the job.  Take active steps to reduce stigma surrounding mental health challenges. 

In addition to these steps, the Idaho State Bar offers resources.  In February 2020, the Board of Commissioners of the Idaho State Bar formed The Attorney Well-Being Task Force.  The task force brings various representatives from sections, committees, and practice groups together to investigate obstacles to well-being in the profession and identify resources to help attorneys, judges, law students, and related staff members not only survive but thrive in their professional and personal lives.   You can access more information about the Idaho State Bar Attorney Well-Being Resources & Task Force online at https://isb.idaho.gov/member-services/programs-resources/attorney-well-being-resources/.  The Idaho Lawyer Assistance Program is also available.  This program offers a 24 hour hotline (866) 460-9014 and has an online presence at https://isb.idaho.gov/member-services/programs-resources/lap/.

This year’s Idaho State Bar Annual Meeting presents an opportunity for all of you to combat social isolation by attending July 20^th through 22^nd.  For the first time ever, the annual meeting will be held in Twin Falls, Idaho.  The venue overlooks the stunning Snake River Canyon.  It is a terrific opportunity to mingle with attorneys from around the state and grow your social connections.  If financial or professional circumstances are an issue, there are a limited number of scholarships available for attorneys.  Scholarships include full registration, tickets to the social events, and per diem up to $75 per day for travel and lodging. To apply for a scholarship, go to the Idaho State Bar website and complete the Annual Meeting Scholarship Request Form.  If you have questions, contact the Idaho State Bar Commissioner who represents your judicial district or the Bar’s Program and Legal Education Director, Teresa Baker.  I hope to see you in Twin Falls!

Kyme Graziano

Published January 2022

Almost four thousand Idaho residents and many out of state residents, contact the Idaho State Bar (ISB) Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) each year looking for legal help. LRS attorneys provide these potential clients with access to the law and improve the public’s trust in attorneys. The LRS puts into action the ISB’s mission to promote high standards of professional conduct and to aid in the advancement of the administration of justice. The LRS provides this much needed public service by bridging the gap between the community and the experienced attorneys who are registered panel members in the LRS program.

Anyone can call the LRS or obtain a referral on our website. The LRS fields around 4,000 inquiries each year and as of November 2021 has provided 2,061 referrals to the 150 LRS attorneys. The LRS intake coordinator screens callers to address which area of law they need assistance in however, not every caller receives a referral to an LRS attorney – some receive referrals to community or governmental agencies. Callers may be directed to small claims court, the court assistance and public defender’s offices, or programs such as Idaho Legal Aid Services, Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program, or various local legal clinics.

LRS attorneys do not handle pro bono cases through the LRS however, there is an arm of the program that launched in 2021 called the Modest Means program. The Modest Means program is designed to provide access to justice to individuals who may not qualify for assistance programs but still are unable to afford regular attorney fees. Potential clients are lightly screened and referred to attorneys in the Lawyer Referral Service that have designated they will accept Modest Means cases in particular areas of law and charge a lower hourly rate for these cases only. The Modest Means program is available to all LRS attorneys who are interested in giving back to their communities in this manner.

Most of the attorneys who participate in the LRS joined for two reasons: 1) they would like to develop new clients, and 2) they are interested in giving back to the community. The LRS could not provide this public service without the dedication of the participating attorneys.   A relatively new attorney practicing in Idaho, Edward Dindinger, has this to say about the LRS: “Having started a new law firm in 2018, the Idaho State Bar Lawyer Referral Service has been an essential business generation tool for my partner and me. It also provides an important service to those in our state who are in need of legal advice, but don’t know where to turn.”

Attorneys on the LRS panel are just like you! They are hard-working, intelligent professionals who strive to develop their practice while using their legal skills to provide consumers with access to justice.  Of the 150 panel members in 2021, many are solo practitioners or in small firms and others practice in medium to large firms. Some have been attorneys for 50 years, some for only two to three, and a few are newly admitted. All these attorneys are experienced and knowledgeable in the specific areas of law in which they register to receive referrals and have a passion for helping the people of Idaho. To participate in the LRS, attorneys submit their registration in the areas of law they wish to receive referrals. There are 136 different options under which to register. All attorneys in the LRS are in good standing with the Bar and must maintain this clear discipline record to remain on the LRS panel.

LRS attorneys provide a free initial consultation of up to a half-hour for LRS clients. Callers are told that while the initial consultation is free, all fee arrangements are determined between the attorney and the client. ISB members pay a registration fee to join the LRS. The LRS receives potential clients from the ABA, other state bar associations, local court assistance offices, governmental agencies, and community organizations. We are continually looking for ways to spread the word about the wonderful public service the LRS provides. Next time you receive an inquiry about an area of law you don’t practice, please know that the experienced LRS attorneys are well suited to serve the needs of your referral.

We invite you to join the LRS in 2022 and thank all the attorneys currently participating in the LRS panel – we couldn’t help the public without you. We are so grateful to these 150 attorneys and we would love to have you be part of the service as well. If you have questions about the LRS or would like more information about registration, please contact the ISB LRS Coordinator, Kyme Graziano at 208-334-4500 or kgraziano@isb.idaho.gov.

Various Authors

Published January 2022

Attorneys for Civic Education (ACE) is proud to announce that three Idaho students and their schools were selected for prizes in ACEs first Civics Contest. Student essays explored Constitutional rights and correlating responsibilities. The three winning entries were: Audra Bunn, Wendell Middle School; Adison Buzzell, Idaho Home Learning Academy; and Dylan Hughes, North Junior High School.

The ACE Civics Contest is open to Idaho middle school students. In its inaugural year, the contest was financially sponsored by the Government and Public Sector Lawyers Section of the Idaho State Bar, whose financial contribution allowed ACE to award prizes to the top three entries along with an honorarium to the schools. The Idaho Supreme Court and the University of Idaho College of Law also provided extensive support.

Entries were critiqued by a panel of judges that included: Idaho Supreme Court Justice Gregory Moeller; Donald Burnett, retired Acting President of the University of Idaho, former Dean of the College of Law, and former Idaho Court of Appeals Judge; Pandi Elison-Chang, Ph.D., Social Studies Teacher at Preston High School, Secondary Social Studies/Adjunct Professor Idaho State University; and Melissa Davlin, Producer/Host at Idaho Public Television.

Justice Moeller said of the entries, “It was a delight to read so many inspiring essays and, frankly, reassuring to see that the rising generation has such a deep love for and understanding of the U.S. Constitution.”

Don Burnett noted regarding the essay topics, “The students identified an impressive array of constitutional provisions, including all of the first five amendments as well as the 8^th, 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 19^th, and 16^th Amendments. Students also showed thoughtful insight into how individual rights come with personal responsibilities.”

ACE would like to thank our judges and sponsors for their support of the Civics Contest. We appreciate their dedication to advancing civic education in our state.

The three winning entries are published in the following two pages.

---

The United States Constitution Protects Numerous Individual Rights

Audra Bunn

The United States Constitution protects many individual rights that have impacted our country. Three rights that can be found in the Constitution include women’s right to vote, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. These rights are all important and all come with great responsibility that people need to be willing to follow.

Women’s right to vote was very important because it gave women an opportunity to vote for their country. Women’s suffrage rights are found in the 19th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In 1920, this amendment was passed in the House of Representatives, the Senate and ratified in the states (nps.gov). However, this didn’t give voting rights to all women immediately. Women of color, lower income women, and women of crime were all excluded. Native American women couldn’t vote until 1924, when they were recognized as U.S citizens (nps.gov). The obligation of women voters is to know and understand the candidates. It is also important to not be affected by public opinion. This means that you can’t always assume what is being said is true. As voters, women need to think about what is going to benefit everyone, and not just them personally.

Freedom of speech allows us to speak our minds freely about something important. This right was adopted in the Constitution on December 15, 1791, as part of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights (guardianlv.com). Freedom of speech means that whatever you write, or say, the government can’t jail or fine you, except in exceptional circumstances (guardianlv.com). With having the right of freedom of speech, you want to be responsible with what you say because it represents what you stand for. Make sure what you say does not hurt others with hateful remarks, accusations, and untrue statements. When this is done, it does not show freedom of speech, but instead shows immaturity or foolish behavior.

Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, was first adopted into the Constitution on December 15, 1791, as a part of the First Amendment (“U.S Constitution”). This gives people the right to speak, act, and live their religious beliefs peacefully and publicly. It also protects their ability to be themselves at work, class, or social activities (heritage.org). People can live in peace not having to be worried about being punished by the government (heritage.org). Another responsibility is not making fun of or bullying others because of their religion. So, when talking about your religion or someone else’s, try not to judge them for it because everyone is different.

In conclusion, The United States Constitution protects many individual rights that have made changes toward how we live today. Three rights that can be found in the Constitution include women’s right to vote, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. With all these rights, there are great responsibilities as well. It is also very important to remember the way we act can represent us as human beings.

---

---

America’s Instruction Manual

Adison Buzzell

The Constitution of the United States is one of the most important documents ever written in American history. Our forefathers wrote this to act as an instruction manual for our government leaders and ensure a way to protect the rights of citizens. It also serves to limit government power.

Freedom of expression is one of our protected rights as American citizens. It is found in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Expression includes our right to free speech, peaceful assembly, petitioning the government, and freedom of religion. This means that Americans can express their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs freely, without fear of persecution. Each citizen also has the individual responsibility to exercise these rights appropriately. America was founded on the belief that people should have the right to choose their own religion, not the government. As citizens, we must protect our rights by petitioning our leaders, or by peaceful protest, when we feel those rights have been violated, and to hold our officials accountable. The First Amendment is an important factor in keeping our voices and individuality.

The right to bear arms is another freedom protected by the Constitution. It is the Second Amendment found in the Bill of Rights. This right means a citizen can own firearms. Our founding fathers knew that in order for people to remain free, they must have means to form a militia, should they need to, against enemies foreign and domestic. This includes a tyrannical government. Leaders are held more accountable when they fear the people. History has shown that the birth of tyranny in a country always begins with disarming the people. We learned this from Nazi, Germany and other communist regimes. We would never want this in America. This freedom to bear arms carries much individual responsibility. Citizens must be good stewards of this right and learn how to use firearms safely. People must also use good judgement, and be able to discern if and when a militia is truly necessary.

A citizen’s right to vote is an essential freedom. This right is represented in Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26. The Constitution states that legal citizens cannot be denied the right to vote based on gender, race, skin color, previous servitude, age (over 18), or tax status. Voting is how leaders of our country are selected at all levels of government. I believe it is the responsibility and civic duty of each citizen to carefully examine candidates for election and choose representatives who will uphold and protect our Constitutional freedoms and liberties. Choosing not to vote, is forfeiting a citizen’s voice in government.

The American people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All generations have the responsibility to understand their Constitutional rights and learn how to protect them. We must teach these truths if our country is to remain a free, sovereign, and independent nation. I know I will be one who always stands up for freedom and the Constitution.

---

---

Voting Rights

Dylan Hughes

Voting, a vital part of citizenship in the United States, is how we elect who we believe has our best interests in mind. There are three amendments to the Constitution that establish the right to vote for all adults regardless of race, sex, and age. These amendments can, however, leave gaps that allow for unfairness when people are exercising their right to vote.

Passed in 1870, the right to vote regardless of “color, race, or previous condition of servitude” [1] can be found in Section 1 of the 15th Amendment. My Chinese ancestors wouldn’t have been able to vote until this amendment was passed. This right allowed for people of any race or skin color to vote, as well as the formerly enslaved. Also, even if you were a slave in the past, you could vote. While this amendment made all men eligible to vote, it left open the opportunity for unfairness. This included poll taxes and literacy tests [2]. I believe the individual responsibility that comes with this right is to make voting accessible to everyone, including people of color. 19.5% of Black people are below the poverty line, with Hispanics at 17%, and Asians at 8.1% [3], which could make it harder to commute a long distance to a polling place. After all, if you are allowed to vote but can’t, what good does this amendment really do?

It was another 50 years before the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote. At the time, in 1920, women were not seen as equals to men. Many women followed their husbands’ lead and let them make the decisions. As a female, my responsibility when I can vote will be to not let other people tell me who I should vote for. By voting for who I believe is the best choice, I am not placing myself below men like women did in the past.

51 years after this, in 1971, the 26th Amendment was ratified. Found in Section 1 of the 26th Amendment is the right to vote at 18 years of age. Before this time, men were drafted in wars, but they were seen as too irresponsible to vote. When I turn eighteen, my responsibility will be to stay educated on current politics so I know who I want to vote for. If I am not informed about the issues that affect me, how will I know which candidate wants to help with these issues?

In conclusion, it took over 100 years for these three amendments to be ratified, but to this day, unfairness persists. As a female of Chinese descent who will turn 18 in a few years, these amendments affect me in many ways. To realize the full potential of these rights, my generation needs to take on the individual responsibilities of increasing access to vote, having confidence in your vote, and making an educated vote.

---

---

References

[1] The US Constitution, Section 1 of the 15th Amendment, passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

[2]https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilWarAme ndments.htm

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/200476/us-poverty-rate-by-ethnic-group/

Ryan Lindig

Published January 2022

Editor’s Note: Due to length and space constraints, the author and Editorial Advisory Board have opted to split publication of this article into two installments. This portion is the first half with the remaining half scheduled to be published in the September 2022 issue.

In the hands of an expert, gemstones can be cut into brilliant works of art, taking in rays of light and producing the shimmer and color that makes them so alluring. But when a raw diamond is pulled from the earth, it is simply a pretty rock, not yet deserving of protection. Value has not been added to the stone. Traditionally, only once a gem cutter has cut and polished the stone into something of value does it warrant protection under United States intellectual property law.

A diamond in its cut and polished form is graded based on the 4 C’s: color, clarity, cut, and carat weight.[1] The way a diamond is designed and shaped is called a “cut.” A cut is the arrangement of facets on a diamond and how well those facets interact with light.[2] Depending on which cut is used, the diamonds that qualify to be called that specific cut can be broad, but it can be very specific, down to the arrangement, number, and even angle, of its facets.[3] The most common cut is called the round “brilliant” cut.[4] Historically, the diamond cut was the only aspect of a diamond in relatively complete control by large diamond manufacturers. Large diamond mines are able to sort which diamonds to sell for jewelry use and which to sell for industrial use.

Smaller scale diamond miners do not have the same control over the four C’s of a diamond. For example, an amateur miner might go to a public mine and find only one jewelry viable diamond; that piece could be very large but narrow or have imperfections within. In order to preserve carat weight or provide the best clarity, that diamond would have to be cut in a specific way. The only other semi-controllable aspect of diamonds, historically, is the color. Natural diamonds can be treated with radiation to adjust the color to achieve a desired color scheme, but a precise color scheme could not be guaranteed.[5]

With the advancements made in synthetic diamond manufacturing, cut, color, clarity, and carat weight are all now completely controllable aspects of diamonds. These advancements have raised the question as to whether the intellectual property aspects of synthetic diamonds, and the IP rights of synthetic diamond manufacturers, are protectable under more avenues of IP than with respect to natural diamonds.

This paper will examine how the rights of diamond manufacturers have traditionally been protected, how synthetic diamonds are created, and the possible ways the IP aspects of synthetic diamonds, as well as the IP rights of synthetic diamond manufacturers can be protected under modern day technology and law.

The historical protection of diamond intellectual property

The natural diamond itself is not protected by intellectual property law before being cut. It is a fact of nature; nothing more than a rock, albeit ripe with potential. When a diamond is cut to be used in  jewelry, the rock itself is still not protected. Rather, the cut is what is protected, as that is the useful element added by the labors of a human.

The diamond cut is the defining factor in how a diamond looks and how it interacts with light. The way different diamond cuts interact with light is deliberate; the gem cutter is creating a functional feature, thus making it protectable under patent law. Unique and creative diamond cuts have been historically protected through patent and trademark law.

Patent protection

The round brilliant cut is the most common partly because it has been around for centuries, but also because it is one of the most efficient arrangements of facets in causing a diamond to interact with light to create desirable visual effects, such as “brightness,” “fire,” and “scintillation.[6]”

A diamond’s interaction with light to create these effects is the reason a cut is functional, and thus protectable under utility patent.[7] At the most basic level, a utility patent protects the way an article is used and works.[8] In the diamond industry, a utility patent protects how the cut, not the diamond, transmits light and creates brilliance, fire, and scintillation.[9]

While the round brilliant cut dominates the consumer market, a multitude of other types of cuts exist. Figure 3 shows a portion of the first page of Tiffany & Co’s utility patent for the Lucida cut filed in 1998.[10]  Figure 4 is a page from Henry Grossbard’s radiant cut utility patent filed in 1976.[11] Both of these patents have since expired, as well as Tiffany’s concurrent design patent, however Tiffany & Co. is still actively using and protecting the Lucida trademark.[12] Utility patents require a detailed explanation of how the facets work to refract light and create the aforementioned visual effects, and will protect a diamond cut for 20 years measured from the filing date.[13]

Figure 5 shows how far science and technology have come in accurately measuring the light performance of a cut.[14] This image is a compilation of pages from a patent filed in 2017 for a very specific way to create an emerald cut, down to the precise degree that each facet should be cut every time, for the purpose of obtaining a perfect light performance grade from the American Gem Society. This patent is one of many that measurably demonstrates the functionality of a cut.

In the alternative, a design patent protects the way an article looks; in the diamond industry, a design patent protects the ornamental appearance of a diamond cut.[15] (35 U.S.C. 171) When a diamond has been cut, an observer can view the physical manifestation of a diamond design. Design patents are usually less complex than related utility patents and require only a diagram of what the finished cut looks like to warrant protection. Figure 6 is a page from a patent assigned to Lili Diamonds for the Meteor cut, registered in 2011.

While a design patent does not protect any of the functional, structural, or utilitarian elements of a cut, a design patent and a utility patent are not mutually exclusive. A company that wishes to create a new diamond cut can apply for, and receive, both a utility and design patent. In addition, the name of a unique cut can be protected by trademark.

Trademark Protection

Certain cuts are profitable enough that failing to name the cut would be to miss out on a safety net for missing money. For example, Lili Diamonds patented the Meteor cut above, however it was not patented as the “Meteor Cut.” It was patented simply as “Gemstone.[16]” Lili Diamonds filed for trademark protection of the “Meteor” cut name in the United States in 2016, 5 years after the date of first use. Trademarks in the diamond industry protects the brand name of the cut, and need not be registered if used in commerce, and need not be registered after first use.

However, once the name is registered, the name must be used in commerce.[17] Trademark protection for the cut name is desirable, as the duration will be indefinite if affidavits of continued use are timely filed.[18] Lili Diamonds, a jewelry company has a couple of trademarked cuts, such as the Lily cut and the Orchidea cut. While the patent protection has since expired, the company is meticulously active in maintaining trademark use and protection for all of their recognizable cuts.[19]

The names of Lili’s cuts would likely fall under suggestive, and thus are inherently distinct marks that do not require secondary meaning within the minds of consumers. I say this because even though the cuts are named after real things, like Lily, and Meteor, if courts were to apply the imagination test to the Meteor cut, it would likely require imagination, thought, and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods, rendering it a suggestive mark. Zatarain’s Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. Furthermore, Orchidea is a funny spelling of a word, and would also be found to be suggestive.

Other IP protection

Trade dress is a special type of mark. The trade dress of a product is essentially its total image and overall appearance.[20] In a relatively recent case, the Supreme Court established three categories for determining whether a product’s trade dress is protectable: product packaging, product design, and a “tertium quid.[21]” Trade dress that is either product packaging or akin to product packaging, like the robin’s egg blue boxes and bags that Tiffany’s products come in, is considered trade dress that is inherently distinctive, and protectable without requiring proof of secondary meaning.

However, product-design trade dress does require a showing of secondary meaning to be protectable.[22]Because court’s have been instructed to err on the side of caution, and classify hard cases at the margin as product-design, diamond cuts would likely not qualify for trade dress protection. The USPTO will also not issue protection for functional trademarks.[23]  The unfortunate reality for diamond manufacturers is that 95 percent of the public knows nothing more than the popular “round” or “square” shapes, – even less know the name of the actual popular cut, and can’t tell the difference between propriety cut designs.[24] 

Trade secrets are essentially useless in protecting natural diamond cuts. Any trained observer can take a diamond, count the facets, and recreate the cut on a couple pieces of quartz until they’re ready to recreate it on a diamond. However, synthetic diamonds are grown using a formula, and this paper will explore whether all that goes into a growth formula can be protected under trade secret.

Copyright protection for diamond cuts has not been accepted by courts and issuing offices because of problems with meeting the originality threshold, the problems that come with the exclusive rights of copyright holders, and the inseparability of a diamond cut’s utilitarian aspects from its aesthetic elements. The originality requirement is a high barrier to protecting diamond cuts. Under the Constitution and by statute, copyright validity depends on originality.[25] The novelty and originality thresholds are extremely low, yet diamond cuts do not meet the threshold for a number of reasons.

First, diamonds cuts have been in the market since the 16^th century.[26] The market has been saturated with diamond cuts for hundreds of years. Thus, claiming creative originality for a new diamond cut would be difficult, especially if based on copyright standards; most of the popular diamond cuts, like the brilliant cut, are in the public domain today. Exclusive rights of copyright holders present an even greater hurdle.

For illustrative purposes, consider the Queen’s cut, a 60-facet modified oval, patented by Henry Grossbard.[27]  Imagine that Mr. Grossbard was granted copyright protection instead of patent protection. Mr. Grossbard would have the exclusive rights of copyright holders: to do and to authorize the activities that implicate these rights. One of these rights includes the right to create derivative works. Now that a court has granted copyright protection to a cut of a diamond, the court would have to determine what constitutes a derivative work.

Mr. Grossbard himself said that anyone can copy the Queen’s cut by changing a few facets around. Therefore, a person who copies the Queen’s cut and changes a few facets around would likely face infringement liability under copyright, where he would escape under patent law. A derivative diamond cut would likely include more than merely changing a couple of facets around, but it’s unknown how far the rights would extend, because courts had the foresight to predict this rabbit-hole.

Lawsuits would be brought against any diamond cutter who sold a modified oval cut, or an oval, or even a circular shape in general. There would likely be arguments made that any cut with around 60 facets would be a derivative work. Additionally, because a derivative work has a higher threshold requirement for originality than the copyrighted work, it is unlikely any diamond cut that looks remotely like the Queen’s cut could be sold within 70 years. 

The last hurdle a diamond cut would have to make to garner copyright protection is a mixture of the merger doctrine and functional qualities of the cut. Copyright does not protect the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features of useful articles, unless those features are separable from the useful article’s utilitarian elements.[28] In Mazer, the part of the lamp that could get protection is the separable elements, the sculpture, not the lamp as a whole. In this case, a sculptor could take a piece of stone and cut it in the shape of a Queen’s cut. In theory then, the cut could be protected under copyright.

However, what if someone then wanted to apply that cut back onto a diamond in order to create the light refractions? It would be impossible to create the light refractions of a specific cut without cutting a diamond in that shape. In this instance, the merger doctrine would likely kick in. There is only one way to cut a diamond to create the type of light refractions that the Queen’s cut offers, and thus, the idea and expression would merge and the cut would not be copyrightable.

The fundamental problems with protecting diamond cuts through copyright are the novelty and originality threshold, the problems that come with the exclusive rights of copyright holders, and the inseparable qualities a diamond cut has. This is why most inventors who create a new diamond cut have elected to protect their cuts through the simultaneous use of utility and design patents, rather than through copyright law.

Synthetic diamond creation

Synthetic diamonds can be created through a variety of methods, but only two methods are primarily used to create gem-quality diamonds that are used for jewelry.[29] These techniques are known as “High Pressure, High Temperature growth,” (HPHT) and “Chemical Vapor Deposition” (CVD).

The HPHT growth process is shown in Figures 8, 9, and 10. To grow a diamond using the HPHT method, a diamond manufacturer needs equipment to simulate the key conditions of natural diamond growth, which are high temperature and high pressure.[30] Figure 8 is a diagram of a heating cell where the high temperature portion of the growth process takes place.

First, a manufacturer will place a diamond seed crystal at the bottom of the cell. A seed crystal is a tiny piece of diamond (pure carbon) that behaves as a blueprint for carbon atoms. The diamond seed is then surrounded with a metal solvent like iron, cobalt, nickel, or titanium, which is then topped with a pure carbon source like graphite or diamond powder.

Next, the manufacturer begins to heat the cell, heating the top of the cell significantly more than the bottom. The cell heats the metal solvent until it melts; the metal solvent acts as a filter, allowing the carbon at the top to travel down into the cooler part cell, where it meets the diamond seed. The diamond seed is the blueprint for the way the manufacturer wants the carbon atoms to arrange, and does not have to be natural diamond.

HPHT or CVD grown diamonds can be used as a seed crystal, as the atom structure is the same across all types – strong diamond. The carbon atoms from the source find the strong diamond seed blueprint, and begin arranging and attaching to the diamond seed, causing growth.

Figures 9[31] and 10[32] show how diamond manufacturers mimic the second key condition of natural diamond growth: pressure. Figures 9 and 10 shows cubic presses; 6 anvils simultaneously push onto a heating cell to apply massive amounts of pressure. There are other types of presses, however cubic presses are the most popular throughout the industry, due to the efficiency and  customizability. Cubic presses can come in massive sizes to accommodate large-volume cells; the entire apparatus is often much bigger than a person. The entire process can take anywhere from days to weeks, depending on the efficiency of the process, and the desired diamond size.

The second method diamond manufacturers use to grow diamonds for jewelry is called “Chemical Vapor Deposition” (CVD), which is a gas-phase chemical reaction. Figure 11 is a diagram of the chamber and components needed to grow a diamond using the CVD method. Just like in the HTHP process, a diamond seed is needed, which is termed “substrate” in the diagram. However, unlike the HTHP process which takes place in a high-pressure environment, this reaction takes place in a vacuum chamber below atmospheric pressure.

Hydrocarbon gas is mixed with pure hydrogen gas and then microwaves are introduced to generate plasma to stimulate the hydrogen and hydrocarbon bonds to bounce around at high speeds. The microwave frequency used is actually the same as used in a typical microwave oven, although you can’t grow diamonds in your kitchen microwave. The diamond seed is placed on a platform and heated from below, although not as much as with the HTHP method.[33] A diamond seed is a pure carbon structure, but the edges of the carbon structure are terminated by hydrogen atoms.

To add more carbon atoms to the diamond seed, the terminating hydrogen atoms need to be removed first, which is the purpose of the pure hydrogen gas. Figure 12 is a picture of what this process looks like. Hydrogen atoms like to be in pairs, so the singular hydrogen atoms will “clean-up” the edges of the carbon seed by picking up the terminating hydrogen atoms, leaving space for a hydrocarbon atom to take its place. Then the process repeats atom by atom, layer by layer, as the diamond grows. The time required to grow a diamond using the CVD can be anywhere from days to weeks, depending on the specifications of the manufacturer.

Diamond manufacturers who use either of these diamond growth methods are in greater control over the diamond. Because a diamond manufacturer is able to control the size, or carat weight, he also has absolute freedom in the desired cut. With two of the 4C’s now controllable through the mere growth process, the other two are within reach – Color and Clarity. 

Natural diamonds and synthetic diamonds, can be treated with heat or radiation to produce or change the color. Depending on the inclusions/impurities in a natural diamond, a manufacturer with the right knowledge and tools can create a variety of colors but cannot reproduce the exact same color on any diamond every time. Synthetic diamonds provide diamond manufacturers with the ability to control color at more precise levels. The number and types of atoms in a growth chamber can be modified to create different results. If a diamond manufacturer wanted to create a blue diamond, it would add boron atoms into the chamber (HTHP more common than CVD), or it would add nitrogen to grow a yellow diamond[34].

Synthetic diamond manufacturers who produce fancy gem quality diamonds for jewelry have specific formulas in order to create the same color diamond every time.[35] A CVD growth will often result in a brownish tint when the growth process is sped up. This is a result of vacancy clusters and non-diamond carbon inclusions. However, some diamond manufacturers who wish to grow colorless diamonds with CVD will cause this intentionally to shave time off the growth process, as the CVD grown diamond can be quickly treated under HTHP to remove the color.[36]

Natural diamonds have impurities called inclusions that occur when a diamond grows around mineral grains during its formation stage. In HTHP grown diamonds, traces of the metal solvent may get trapped within, creating inclusions that look different than the minerals trapped in natural diamonds. CVD diamonds are usually higher clarity, as there’s no metal solvent to trap. Non-diamond carbon inclusions can detriment clarity, but CVD inclusions are not common, especially when conducted correctly.[37] As illustrated, a diamond manufacturer now has perfect control over color and clarity.

Now, let’s assume the diamond manufacturer we’re talking about is Lightbox, a synthetic diamond manufacturer under DeBeers; it grows, cuts, and places its diamonds into jewelry using the CVD method. As discussed above, this means that Lightbox has complete control over the 4C’s. Lightbox can grow the same diamond, with the exact same size, color, and relative clarity, to be cut the same way each time. To explore how this control translates to IP protection, let’s have an exercise through a hypothetical.

Suppose Lili Jewelry has licensed the Meteor Cut trademark and design and utility patents to Lightbox for its creation of its flagship synthetic diamond: The Blue Moon Diamond. The diamonds are CVD grown in Lightbox laboratories and are cut using the Meteor Cut. After cutting and polishing, each diamond weighs 5 carats every time. In the CVD growth chamber, Boron is added 300 parts per billion to consistently create the same light blue color, and the clarity is always graded at either VVS1 or VVS2. We will be using this fictional Blue Moon Diamond as a starting point for the following discussion on synthetic diamond protection.

---

Endnotes

1. https://4cs.gia.edu/en-us/diamond-cut/

2. https://www.gia.edu/gia-about/4Cs-Cut

[3] U.S. Patent No. 10,448,713

[4] https://www.gia.edu/gia-about/4Cs-Cut

[5] Mike Breeding, The Evolution of Laboratory-Grown Diamond Evaluation at GIA | GIA Knowledge Sessions Webinar, (Oct. 1, 2020), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ1keCKdv_U

[6] https://4cs.gia.edu/en-us/diamond-cut/

[7] http://gemologyproject.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:SRB800px2.JPG

[8] USPTO.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html (citing)  (35 U.S.C.S. § 101).

[9] Thomas Overton, Legal Protection for Proprietary Diamond Cuts, 38 Gems & Gemology 310, 314 (2002)

[10] U.S. Patent No. 5,970,744

[11] U.S. Patent No. 4,020,649

[12] https://www.tiffany.com/search/?q=Lucida%C2%AE

[13] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html

[14] U.S. Patent No. 10,448,713

[15] Thomas Overton, Legal Protection for Proprietary Diamond Cuts, 38 Gems & Gemology 310, 314 (2002)

[16] U.S. Patent No. D650,306

[17] Thomas Overton, Legal Protection for Proprietary Diamond Cuts, 38 Gems & Gemology 310, 314 (2002)

[18] Id.

[19] Lilijewelry.com/specialty/lili-diamond-cuts/

[20] Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. 505 U.S. 763 (1992).

[21] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc. 529 U.S. 205 (2000).

[22] Id.

[23] Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. 532 U.S. 23 (2001)

[24] Pers. Comms, Thomas Overton. LinkedIn, 2/12/2021, 4:56 p.m.

[25] Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 263 F.3d 101, 109 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Feist & U.S. Cons. Art. 1 § 8 , cl. 8).

[26] https://www.langantiques.com/university/rose-cut/

[27] Shor, Russel. “A Diamond Smorgasbord.” Jewelers Circular Keystone Aug. 1997: 80+. Business Insights: Global. Web. 12 Feb. 2021.

[28] Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1953)

[29] Mike Breeding, The Evolution of Laboratory-Grown Diamond Evaluation at GIA | GIA Knowledge Sessions Webinar, (Oct. 1, 2020), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ1keCKdv_U

[30] Pressure ~5-6 GPa (equivalent to 150 – 190 km dept in the earth) with a temperature of anywhere from -~1300-1600 degrees Celsius, can take anywhere from days to weeks.

[31] Mike Breeding, The Evolution of Laboratory-Grown Diamond Evaluation at GIA | GIA Knowledge Sessions Webinar, (Oct. 1, 2020), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ1keCKdv_U

[32] https://www.hatchbrilliance.com/diamond-education/article/cvd-and-hpht-diamonds-explained-3

[33] About 300 degrees Celsius lower

[34] Low Boron 0-100 parts per billion: colorless. Higher Boron (>~100 ppb): blue

[35] Pers. Comms. GIA Librarian

[36]  Mike Breeding, The Evolution of Laboratory-Grown Diamond Evaluation at GIA | GIA Knowledge Sessions Webinar, (Oct. 1, 2020), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ1keCKdv_U

[37] Id.

Chief Justice G. Richard Bevan

Published March/April 2022

I thank you, on behalf of Idaho’s third branch of government, for allowing me to address you today. This speech offers me a chance to reflect and report on the past year, while providing you with a road map of the courts’ needs going forward.

I come here on behalf of not only my fellow justices and Court of Appeals judges, who are with me in the gallery, but also the hundreds of judges, local court clerks, administrative staff and other state and county personnel who help our system run. I thank them for their dedicated service and willingness to continue laboring under less-than-ideal conditions this past year. As I’m sure you recognize, we have faced challenges in 2020 and 2021 unlike anything we have seen for a century. But through it all, because of the dedication of so many devoted people, the rule of law remains alive and well in Idaho.

And that is what we continue to bring to this constitutional partnership with you. While in some parts of this country it’s not uncommon to find the branches of government at odds with each other, in Idaho, we have long remained unwavering in our commitment that as co-equal branches, we strive together to support and enable the freedom, happiness and security of our people.

Our recent experiences are not altogether new in Idaho’s history. In fact, our state courts have evolved with the times, and our friends in the Legislature have been a part of making this happen. We can go back almost a century to the 1920s, when legislation created small claims courts and expanded the number of justices on Idaho’s Supreme Court.

In 1949, the Legislature created the position of coordinator of the courts, an extra role assigned to a sitting justice to help manage administrative needs across our judicial districts. That position was a first step in what led to the court reforms of the 1960s: our unified court system, the magistrate division, the Idaho Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts.

In the 1970s, Idaho was among the first states in the nation to have automated tracking of trial and appellate cases. In the eighties you funded what became our first electronic case management system, ISTARS. And in the nineties, with your help, we first piloted the treatment courts that have grown to include drug courts, mental health courts, DUI courts, and veteran’s treatment courts. Idaho’s treatment courts are among the nation’s finest – providing our most valuable tools to prevent recidivism.

This year marks the 55th anniversary of our Administrative Office, which provides invaluable assistance supporting the Court’s constitutional role to administer our statewide court system. The employees of our Administrative Office focus first and foremost on supporting our local courts. Especially in my current role, I am extremely grateful for their work.

Throughout these decades, even going to “court” has had a flexible meaning at times. As one example, Idaho newspapers record multiple instances of court being held on trains passing between cities more than a century ago. We find ourselves today again innovating to meet the needs of society, holding court online or using space at local fairgrounds to enable jury selection in a safe and prudent manner.

History also records examples of Idaho courts having to postpone or adjust their work during the influenza pandemic of 1918 to 1920. I am grateful in this modern age to have help from technology — also funded by you over the past five years — which has helped us maintain our courts and keep them open to the public.

I offer these examples to show that the past two years’ challenges, while unique, are not entirely novel to our state government. The judiciary has always worked to build traditions that support the rule of law while adapting as society, times, and technology grow. Our continued ability to blend established process with the needs of modern Idaho have ensured that throughout the past two years, the courts remained open to all who wished to file or respond to a claim. I am thus extremely proud of how our courts have responded to the crisis.

Many people who interact with Idaho’s courts do not do so by choice. Defendants, jurors and witnesses are examples of people who are ordered to participate in a court proceeding. Judges, clerks and other staff keep the whole system moving. In order to balance the interests of those required to be in such places without a choice, with those who choose to come to a courthouse, the Idaho Supreme Court developed its COVID-19 emergency orders. These orders act both to keep courts open and accessible, while also protecting the health and safety of those who have no choice about whether they must appear.

These steps took different forms throughout 2021. During the worst waves of the virus, my fellow justices and I ordered uniform precautions statewide, including moving most court proceedings online and adjusting various rules about how hearings are conducted. For much of the year, we were pleased to be able to give judicial districts more flexibility to manage local conditions — and this is how courts in your areas are operating today.

Importantly, these orders changed the ways that hearings were conducted — but they did not halt court business.

In 2019, before the pandemic, judges in Idaho’s state courts presided over more than 300,000 court hearings of all types. In 2021, they conducted nearly as many, and conducted them safely.

The only activities that were completely paused during parts of the year were jury trials and grand jury proceedings. These gatherings represent our highest-risk activities for COVID-19, with large groups of people gathered for days or weeks at a time in small spaces. As a result, such proceedings merited special caution. That said, it’s important to realize that hundreds of trials still took place across this state in 2021 at times when the health guidance allowed them.

Much focus has been put on orders delaying trials, and understandably so. But even before the pandemic, very few cases in Idaho courts actually resulted in a trial. On average, 2% or less of Idaho criminal cases went to trial in 2018 and 2019, a percentage that aligns with patterns in other states. Cases resolve through many ways other than trial: the parties choose to settle, they receive a final decision based on the law, or the party who filed the case chooses to dismiss it.

Some case types don’t include a trial at all, like adoptions: Idaho’s judges handled 820 of those this past year. Courts also managed thousands of open guardianship and conservatorship cases — more than 9,500 were open at the time we assembled our annual report to you.

None of this has been simple. We expect it will take at least a couple of years to fully address the effects of the pandemic. Idaho’s courts still face a dramatically higher number of unresolved cases compared to before COVID-19 reached this state. As of December 2021, that included more than 41,000 pending criminal cases, an increase of 29% from December 2019. On the flipside, pending civil caseloads have declined almost 6% over that same period.

We have gotten frequent questions about this backlog since I discussed it at this time last year. It is important to understand that there are many reasons a court case doesn’t move forward. With the unique circumstances that affect each case, it is hard to say what the primary reasons are. We know that overall, the number of pending cases has increased during the pandemic; that it grew more in the pandemic’s first year than in its second; and that the growth has not been uniform throughout Idaho’s 44 counties. Regardless, we are committed to tackling this challenge even as the pandemic continues.

Technology continues to offer us solutions. Over the past year, we’ve expanded and refined our investment in videoconferencing and related hardware, allowing courts to hear cases remotely and to include participants both within and without courtrooms. Our livestreaming directory can enable access to public hearings when the public cannot attend in person. Judges, clerks and administrative staff have found it necessary to work from any location and respond to the ebb and flow of the pandemic; we have invested in technology to give them as much flexibility as possible while ensuring reliable, secure courts.

In Ada County we tested an alternate solution to resolve eviction cases outside of court called online dispute resolution. While Idaho’s short statutory timeline for evictions posed a challenge to this tool’s effective use, we continue to examine better ways to use technology to enable parties to resolve their disputes.

The Guide & File program allows people to complete and file many court forms themselves over the internet, including for a civil protection order, divorce without children, minor guardianship, or small claims. As you may imagine, this tool has become markedly more important during the pandemic; in fiscal year 2021, more than 7,500 people used it to open an Idaho court case.

Our guardianship and conservatorship monitoring coordinators have found that with the use of remote hearings, they actually have less need to travel and find themselves in greater demand by the courts because of their increased availability over videoconference. Similarly, group and individual counseling services for our treatment courts became available online within weeks of COVID-19 arriving in Idaho and have continued to offer increased flexibility for participants of those courts.

Investments in technology have made it possible to keep courts operating over the past two years, but our foresight will benefit the people of Idaho long after this pandemic has passed. We fully expect that the benefits of technology and the time savings it provides will continue as one silver lining to the otherwise dark cloud of the pandemic. But the realities of financing such an undertaking require that we bring you a request to support investments in technology in dedicated ways as we continue to meet our constitutional duties.

The Idaho Supreme Court’s technology system is mainly supported through the Court Technology Fund. The money in that fund mainly comes from legislatively established fees imposed in criminal and civil cases. The cost of providing technology to support Idaho’s courts has significantly increased over the last five years, far outpacing the collected fees designed to support these needs. Simply put, revenues in the dedicated fund are not keeping pace with the cost of supporting court technology operations across the state — especially when those operations will be in heavy demand to address the pending cases I described earlier.

The Court is examining various solutions to this issue. One involves revisiting certain costs related to our electronic filing system. This year the Court requests a one-time General Fund appropriation to pay the cost of electronic envelope fees within that filing system. This short-term appropriation will provide the Court time to research and present a longer-term solution, likely transitioning some or all of those costs to parties who use the system.

Technology supporting remote work and proceedings is not a temporary need, but an essential component to Idaho’s courts becoming more efficient and flexible. Because some form of virtual court proceedings will need to continue well into the future, there is no expectation that associated costs will subside. Indeed, in 2021, Idaho’s courts held hundreds of thousands of hearings via Zoom, a platform that was not planned or budgeted for when it was implemented. At the same time, greater use of technology and changes in the threat landscape have led to greater cybersecurity concerns for state courts throughout the nation — Idaho included.

To address these concerns, the Court requests a one-time appropriation from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 with carryover spending authority over the next three years. This funding would support continued development of our court technology infrastructure and cybersecurity, while preserving the Court Technology Fund to support ongoing costs.

Idaho’s courts offer many services that benefit both case parties and the state of Idaho, supplying additional support that can dramatically improve outcomes for all involved. These include our family courts, treatment courts and other programs.

Evaluations of Idaho’s felony drug courts, DUI courts, and mental health courts have shown results on par with national averages, reducing recidivism between 10 and 15%. Some of Idaho’s treatment courts serve as national learning centers and are viewed as national leaders for how to properly engage with court participants. Programs focused on domestic violence cases also decrease those incidents, and services for children and parents involved in divorce or custody cases reduce conflict within Idaho families.

For fiscal year 2023 the Court seeks increased spending authority to expand and improve these services. Each year, family court service offices spend their full allocated amount but report that there are still many families who go unserved. We propose to increase this amount of direct service funding by 20% over the next two years. We also propose establishing domestic violence courts in the two judicial districts that do not currently have them, and we seek to put more state resources into treatment court coordination, allowing the courts more options in determining the number of treatment courts and participant caps throughout the state. These actions would be funded by increased spending authority for existing revenues in the drug court, mental health court and family court services fund.

Idaho’s courts provide funding for treatment services for treatment court participants that are unable to be funded through either private insurance or Medicaid. Over the last year, other state agencies have increased reimbursement rates for some treatment services beyond the levels used to estimate the courts’ planned costs. Parity in these rates is vital to ensuring court clients can access the treatment they need. The Court requests increased spending authority in the Substance Abuse Treatment dedicated fund to ensure this parity.

The Court also seeks spending authority from this fund to support newly adopted Best Practice Standards for Treatment Courts. Research shows these actions improve outcomes for treatment court participants. Investing in them will reduce future substance abuse and recidivism among those participants. The fund holds sufficient revenue for both these requests without more demands on taxpayers.

Some services are necessary to help people access the courts. The courts have an obligation to provide access for people for whom English is not their customary language. In this next fiscal year, the Court requests General Fund support for language access services in the Third, Fourth and Sixth Judicial Districts, all of which have identified a need for funding based on local demand — a need we expect to grow as we work through more of our pending caseload. In Ada County alone, an average of 3,600 requests for interpreter services in 42 different languages have been made over the past two years.

The demand trends I describe here also affect the basic administration of the courts.

The trial court administrators, or TCAs, in our judicial districts perform vital work helping the Supreme Court with our constitutional oversight of our unified and integrated judicial system. Under the direction of their administrative district judges, the TCAs work with judges, elected county officials, attorneys and others to maintain efficient court operations. In most judicial districts they cover multiple counties and vast geography. They are tasked to act as the courts’ liaisons in each county throughout the district, managing judicial disqualifications in the magistrate court, appropriate staffing of court reporters, networks of treatment providers for the treatment courts, and many other necessities.

Their work is thus both legally complex and time-intensive — and it has become clear that a single person can no longer accomplish all the necessary tasks to function adequately. As such, our administrative judges recently identified funding a deputy TCA in each district as their top budget priority for fiscal year 2023. The Court requests General Fund support to create these positions.

Along with new deputy TCAs, we again ask for additional judicial resources. Last year, you funded additional judges for the Third Judicial District. Now we ask your help for the Fourth District to add one district judge and court reporter to be chambered in Elmore County, and two magistrate judges to be chambered in Ada County.

In fiscal year 2021, the Fourth District had 1,628 cases per magistrate judge — a volume of work that requires magistrate judges elected in Boise and Valley counties to spend two days a week presiding over Ada County cases. The level of administrative work in the Fourth District also means its administrative district judge cannot carry a full traditional caseload. The Fourth District would like to expand its treatment courts in response to need but cannot do so without additional judicial support.

Meanwhile, we still face challenges in judicial recruitment. My predecessors have told you for some years now about the retirement and recruitment trends that challenge Idaho’s judiciary. Recruitment for district judges remains a particular challenge. We are preparing to survey members of the State Bar about their interests in, and concerns about, becoming a judge. Past surveys have repeatedly identified as a primary issue that judicial salaries are not competitive enough with attorneys in the workforce. Judicial salaries sufficient to attract the best and the brightest must be addressed if we are to recruit such individuals to the bench.

Idaho Code requires separate legislation for any change in judicial compensation. The Court for fiscal year 2023 asks that you consider at least the same percentage of change in compensation for judges as you do other state employees, especially in consideration of the role compensation plays in the recruitment difficulties for district judge positions in the state.

While recognizing our need for additional human capital to function at our best, we also acknowledge that collaboration across our branches is increasingly important to our duties for the people of Idaho. Previously, our Court joined you in establishing the Idaho Behavioral Health Council to find better solutions for those in this state who live with mental illness and addiction. I was proud to see the release of the Council’s strategic plan this past year, and I can report the courts have been active in starting to implement our areas of the Council’s top priorities.

The Council this session endorses legislation to improve Idaho’s civil commitment laws. This bill reduces ambiguity and creates more consistent processes across the state. It also addresses funding questions stemming from legislation passed last year. It is just a start; next year, we look forward to bringing you a proposal, now in development, on earlier engagement with individuals who end up in the justice system.

Judges this spring will help to lead service mapping projects in three counties, gathering community stakeholders to identify gaps in behavioral health care for people involved in the criminal justice system and in intercepting those who need that care. This work should give those communities the information they need to respond more effectively to such cases and address them earlier. Assuming these initial projects succeed, a court-sponsored facilitator training will enable them to be repeated in the other regions across the state.

This topic is a meaningful one for the judiciary. Judges have spontaneously reached out to provide feedback on Idaho’s current system, and have volunteered their time to work on projects related to the Council. Our annual fall judicial education conference focused heavily on creating behavioral health expertise within the judiciary, reinforced by a series of webinars with nationally recognized speakers on this topic. I hope you have seen the same interest in the Legislature.  I can pledge the Court’s continued support for our partnership.

Other important work to improve our courts continues, regardless of the pandemic. We continue to invest in our electronic case management system; we performed a key upgrade last year providing greater efficiencies and resolving various software concerns. Just this month we relaunched our public court data website to provide a more comprehensive view of information spanning court activities and finances. The website gives independent access to court financial and filing data and is part of our commitment to operating transparent, accessible courts.

We are working to better tell our story and help Idahoans understand the role of the Judicial Branch. Indeed, the founders of this country recognized that an educated populace is necessary to maintain our system of government. Public education on topics such as the courts helps our citizens understand the third branch of government and their role in sustaining it. As James Madison said, “The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”

The Court helps support several civic education efforts including those focused on teaching students, as our leaders for tomorrow, about our government. Often this is through helping to judge contests like last year’s Attorneys for Civic Education Civics Contest, which in its first year received an exceptional number of essays by middle school students about constitutional rights and their related responsibilities.

For the Idaho Law Foundation’s Law Day Podcast Contest, high school students submitted 5- to 10-minute podcasts on topics such as the relationship between law and morality, and on the application of American civil liberties throughout U.S. history. We partner regularly on educational institutes benefitting teachers and journalists, and we are working this year to build additional civic education programs within the courts.

It benefits us all when Idahoans learn more about their government: how it works, how to engage. Which brings me back to this annual gathering here. Together, each January we find ways to better serve the people and maintain a court system that uniquely reflects Idaho. We appreciate the opportunity once again to share our vision with you.

We are living through an extraordinary time. But together, we have seen Idaho and its people through such times before. Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying, “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” I have faith and confidence that we will continue to meet the demands of our tomorrows as we accept the challenges before us today — just like those who have come before.

Thank you for joining us to make it happen.

---

Kolby K. Reddish

Published March/April 2022

One of the things I enjoy immensely about receiving my copy of The Advocate every month and my membership in the Idaho State Bar is the way that we are able to learn from each other’s unique perspectives, experiences, and positions. Nothing excites me more than listening to lawyers from different practice areas discuss the developments and evolution of those areas. With acknowledgement that some of the “more seasoned” members of the Bar or Bench may be better equipped to present a guide on statutory interpretation, I am eager to share lessons that I have learned thus far in my career.

This article examines the following keys in the Idaho Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation analysis: the plain meaning rule and ambiguity, determining legislative intent, as well as several other canons of construction. In some ways, these keys can be understood as progressive steps in resolving any statutory interpretation issue. For example, a typical statutory interpretation case begins with examining the plain meaning of the statute. If the statute is found ambiguous, legislative intent and the other canons must be applied to construe the statute. This article is named for the 2020 Idaho Supreme Court case of Fell v. Fat Smitty’s, LLC, that serves as a reminder of the importance of the principles of statutory construction.[1] Let’s explore those steps in detail.

Plain-Meaning Rule

We begin with the plain meaning rule, which examines the plain language of the statutory scheme at issue. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held: “Interpretation of a statute ‘must begin with the literal words of the statute; those words must be given their plain, usual, and ordinary meaning; and the statute must be construed as a whole. If the statute is not ambiguous, this Court does not construe it, but simply follows the law as written.’”[2]. For a term that is undefined in the statute or a related provision, the Court turns to ordinary dictionaries to give the term its plain meaning.[3] The Court has strongly adhered to this plain meaning rule since the 2012 decision of Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center.[4] Review of the reasoning of this case helps outline the Court’s reliance on the plain meaning rule.

In Verska, the Court was faced with the question of the Court’s authority to modify the plain language of a statute because the plaintiffs argued that the result of the unambiguous language would lead to an absurd result.[5] The plaintiffs contended that “[t]he literal wording of a statute cannot be honored if it creates unreasonable, absurd results” based upon dicta from past decisions of the Court.[6] The Court rejected this argument and repudiated this language on the basis of the principle of the separation of powers.[7] As the Court explained: “we have never revised or voided an unambiguous statute on the ground that it is patently absurd or would produce absurd results when construed as written, and we do not have the authority to do so.”[8]

As the Court has stated: “The most fundamental premise underlying judicial review of the legislature’s enactments is that . . . the courts must assume that the legislature meant what it said.”[9] On this basis, the Court disavowed any language in previous cases that indicated that the stated intent of the Legislature[10] or policy concerns[11] could control over the unambiguous language of a statute. Thus, in interpreting statutory or constitutional provisions, the plain meaning primarily controls.

As Applied to Court Rules

The plain meaning rule applies to limit the Court’s authority to interpret statutes due to operation of separation of powers concerns. “The public policy of legislative enactments cannot be questioned by the courts and avoided simply because the courts might not agree with the public policy so announced.”[12] After all, as the Court has recognized: “If a statute is unsound or the policy behind it unwise, the power to correct the statute rests with the Legislature, not the judiciary.”[13]

However, the plain meaning rule does not strictly apply to the interpretation of Court rules, largely because the same separation of powers concerns do not apply to the Court revising or interpreting its own directives rather than those of the Legislature. The Court held accordingly in Montgomery: “We are not constrained by the constitutional separation of powers when interpreting rules promulgated by the Court. Today we make it clear that while the interpretation of a court rule must always begin with the plain, ordinary meaning of the rule’s language it may be tempered by the rule’s purpose. We will not interpret a rule in a way that would produce an absurd result.”[14] Thus, in interpreting a court rule the plain meaning of the words is still an important consideration, but not absolutely controlling as it is for interpreting statutes. Instead, the courts will interpret the plain language in ways that avoid absurd results.

The Court’s guiding principle in determining what qualifies as an “absurd result” seems to be those interpretations that would violate the Idaho Criminal Rules’ aspiration “for the just determination of every criminal proceeding.”[15] In other words, all court rules should be construed so as “to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.”[16] The Court has explicitly extended this reasoning in construing the Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure in Kelly v. Kelly.[17] Accordingly, it seems that the same analysis in Montgomery would apply equally in civil actions as well, though the Court has yet to so hold.

To see an interesting contrast between the way the application differs for statutes and rules, examine the cases of State v. Osborn and State v. Chambers.[18] In Osborn, the majority of the Court followed the plain language of the statute for calculating credit for time served despite the undesirable effect: “The fact that we may dislike the result is of no moment. We will not interpret the plain language of a statute simply to reach a more desirable result.”[19]

However in Chambers, the Court treated the language of a court rule very differently. In Chambers, the Court examined the effect of the plain language of Idaho Rule of Evidence 412.[20] The Court noted that the plain language of the rule limited testimony to false allegations of sex crimes “made at an earlier time[.]”[21] In the case, the parties offered different interpretations of what constituted an “earlier time” within the context of the rule.[22] Ultimately, the Court resolved the question, after citing to Montgomery, by stating: “The most logical interpretation of Rule 412(b)(2)(C) is that it contains no temporal requirement.”[23]

The takeaway for us practitioners is that the Court seems willing to construe the language of Court rules contrary to their plain language to avoid undesirable results, but is unwilling to do so when interpreting statutes.

Applicable Test for Administrative Rules

Finally, the Court has articulated a separate set of rules applicable to the pervasive world of administrative law. Rather than simply adopting the Federal doctrines,[24] our Court has recognized that: “it is this Court’s responsibility to determine the validity of [administrative] rule[s].”[25]

To accomplish this test, the Court has espoused a four-prong test originally announced in J.R. Simplot Company v. Idaho State Tax Commission.[26] This test embodies four considerations. “First, we must determine if the agency has been entrusted with the responsibility to administer the statute at issue. Second, the agency’s statutory construction must be reasonable. Third, we must determine whether the statutory language at issue does not expressly treat the precise question at issue. Finally, we must ask whether any of the rationales underlying the rule of deference are present.”[27]

If the four-prong test is satisfied, then courts will give “considerable weight” to the administrative agency’s interpretation of the statutory provision.[28] The nuances of the way this test has been applied are better suited for comprehensive exploration in a standalone article, but all practitioners should be aware of the deference that the Simplot test affords administrative agencies.

Ambiguity and Determining Legislative Intent

A statute cannot have the plain meaning rule applied where the language is ambiguous. In that sense, the plain-meaning rule and ambiguity are opposite sides of the same coin. “A statute is ambiguous where the language is capable of more than one reasonable construction.”[29]

“Ambiguity is not established merely because different interpretations are presented by the parties. If that were the test then all statutes whose meanings are contested in litigation could be considered ambiguous.”[30] “[A] statute is not ambiguous merely because an astute mind can devise more than one interpretation of it.”[31] If a statute is determined to be ambiguous, courts interpret the statute in a way that accomplishes the Legislature’s intent.[32]

The literal words of the statute still provide the best guide to legislative intent, highlighting the continued importance of the plain-meaning rule throughout the interpretative process.[33] When the Court must further determine legislative “intent, we examine not only the literal words of the statute, but also the reasonableness of proposed constructions, the public policy behind the statute, and its legislative history.”[34] Determining a single legislative intent poses a unique challenge precisely because one of the beauties of the Legislature is that it is full of many different voices, viewpoints, and perspectives.

For example, in State v. Clarke, the Court turned to the intent of the framers of the Idaho Constitution to determine legislative intent.[35] This required the Court to examine “the practices at common law and the statutes of Idaho when our constitution was adopted and approved by the citizens of Idaho.”[36] Sometimes however, determining a singular intent is difficult. Take for example, the paired cases of Idaho Telephone Company v. Baird and Idaho State Tax Commission v. Simmons.[37]

Both of these cases turn to the debates of the Idaho Constitutional Convention to answer questions regarding the power of the Legislature in granting exemptions from property tax and come to exactly opposite answers based upon review of the material.[38] These cases, examined as a pair, demonstrate the inherent difficulty and challenge in identifying one singular legislative purpose. Reasonable minds can examine the same legislative history and interpret its purpose differently.

Other Canons of Construction

Finally, in applying the legislative intent, the Court has cited several different canons of statutory construction that can be applied to find the proper meaning. For a practitioner, it would be recommended to ensure that your argued interpretation satisfies more of these guiding canons than your opponent’s construction does. From that point of view, here are several canons that you should become familiar with for solving any statutory interpretation problem. Keep in mind that these rules are not unimpeachable rules of law, simply guides to help accomplish legislative intent.[39] Once you do, these are invaluable tools for resolving any statutory interpretation dispute:

• Noscitur a sociis or “a word is known by the company it keeps.”[40] This maxim works to help define terms by understanding those defined terms around them.[41]
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is the maxim “where a constitution or statute specifies certain things, the designation of such things excludes all others.”[42] This maxim can be an especially useful tool when comparing the demands of two different statutory provisions.
• Ejusdem generis provides that “where general words of a statute follow an enumeration of persons or things, such general words will be construed as meaning persons or things of like or similar class or character to those specifically enumerated[.]”[43] This maxim is another useful tool for providing additional context to an interpretation.
• Finally, in pari materia advises that “statutes relating to the same subject—or those that are in pari materia—must be construed together.”[44] This maxim can be particularly helpful when attempting to divine the way that two statutory provisions work in concert.

Of course, this list is not intended to be definitive or exhaustive. However, I hope that the cases provided demonstrate how the Court applies these principles and will be helpful to you as you work on your next statutory interpretation problem or case.

---

Endnotes

[1] 167 Idaho 34, 467 P.3d 398 (2020).

[2] Florer v. Walizada, 168 Idaho 932, 489 P.3d 843, 846 (2021) (quoting State v. Ambstad, 164 Idaho 403, 405, 431 P.3d 238, 240 (2018))

[3] Curlee v. Kootenai Cty. Fire & Rescue, 148 Idaho 391, 398–400, 224 P.3d 458, 465–67 (2008).

[4] 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (2011).

[5] Id. at 894, 265 P.3d at 507.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 896, 265 P.3d at 509.

[8] Id. (emphasis added).

[9] Id. at 894–95, 265 P.3d at 507–08 (emphasis added).

[10] See Idaho Dep’t of Health and Welfare v. Doe, 151 Idaho 300, 256 P.3d 708 (2011) and State v. Doe, 147 Idaho 326, 208 P.3d 730 (2009).

[11] State, Dep’t of L. Enf’t v. One 1955 Willys Jeep, V.I.N. 573481691, 100 Idaho 150, 595 P.2d 299 (1979), abrogated by Verska, 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502.

[12] Verska, 151 Idaho at 896, 265 P.3d at 509 (quoting State v. Village of Garden City, 74 Idaho 513, 525, 265 P.2d 328, 334 (1953)).

[13] State v. Montgomery, 163 Idaho 40, 44, 408 P.3d 38, 42 (2017) (citing Verska)

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. (citing I.C.R. 2(a)).

[17] 165 Idaho 716, 724, 451 P.3d 429, 437 (2019) (citing I.R.F.L.P. 101).

[18] 165 Idaho 627, 449 P.3d 419 (2019); 166 Idaho 837, 465 P.3d 1076 (2020).

[19] 165 Idaho at 632, 449 P.3d at 424.

[20] 166 Idaho at 842–43, 465 P.3d at 1081–82.

[21] Id. at 842, 465 P.3d at 1081 (citing I.R.E. 412(b)(2)(C)).

[22] Id. at 842–43, 465 P.3d at 1081–82.

[23] Id. at 843, 465 P.3d at 1082 (emphasis added).

[24] Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984); Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).

[25] Mason v. Donnelly Club, 135 Idaho 581, 583, 21 P.3d 903, 905 (2001).

[26] 120 Idaho 849, 820 P.2d 1206 (1991).

[27] Mason, 135 Idaho at 583, 21 P.3d at 905.

[28] Id.

[29] Porter v. Bd. of Trustees, Preston School Dist. No. 201, 141 Idaho 11, 14, 105 P.3d 671, 674 (2004).

[30] Bonner Cty. v. Cunningham, 156 Idaho 291, 295, 323 P.3d 1252, 1256 (Ct. App. 2014).

[31] Ada Cty. Prosecuting Attorney v. 2007 Legendary Motorcycle, 154 Idaho 351, 354, 298 P.3d 245, 248 (2013).

[32] State v. Doe, 140 Idaho 271, 274, 92 P.3d 521, 524 (2004).

[33] State v. Doe, 147 Idaho 326, 328, 208 P.3d 730, 732 (2009).

[34] Id.

[35] 165 Idaho 393, 397, 446 P.3d 451, 455 (2019).

[36] Id.

[37] 91 Idaho 425, 423 P.2d 337 (1967); 111 Idaho 343, 723 P.2d 887 (1986).

[38] Baird, 91 Idaho at 430, 423 P.2d at 342; Simmons, 111 Idaho at 348, 723 P.2d at 892.

[39] Hewson v. Asker’s Thrift Shop, 120 Idaho 164, 167, 814 P.2d 424, 427 (1991).

[40] State v. Schulz, 151 Idaho 863, 867, 264 P.3d 970, 974 (2001).

[41] State v. Sams, 160 Idaho 917, 920 n.3, 382 P.3d 366, 369 n.3 (Ct. App. 2016).

[42] Fat Smitty’s, 167 Idaho at 38, 467 P.3d at 402.

[43] State v. Hart, 135 Idaho 827, 831, 25 P.3d 850, 854 (2001).

[44] In re Adoption of Doe, 156 Idaho 345, 350, 326 P.3d 347, 352 (2014).

Olivia N. Ford

Gwen K. Sweesy

Published March/April 2022

Boomers don’t understand new technology.[1] Generation X are apathetic.[2] Millennials are killing department stores.[3] Generation Z canceled skinny jeans and side parts.[4] It seems every week there is a new gripe from one generation about another. This isn’t just in popular culture either, as these labels and stereotypes have the potential to bleed over into the legal profession and workplace.[5] It is time we reevaluate how we in the legal profession use and view these generational labels and decide if they offer any valuable information or are just a way to cut down those outside our respective “in-groups.”

Defining the Generations

While there is some debate regarding exactly when one generation ends and the next starts, the Pew Research Center has emerged as the “expert” and deciding voice on the most readily accepted generational definitions. Pew Research Center is a self-described “nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research.”[6]

The disagreement on the definitions of generations, aside from Baby Boomers, is that the start/end dates for each generation are picked arbitrarily. The generation labeled “Baby Boomers” is the only generation that is based on a shared demographic event: the post-World War II baby boom. All of the generations following, and even the silent generation before, were simply lumped together in 14–20-year ranges.

Based upon these age ranges, persons within the Silent Generation group are currently 77-94 years old, Baby Boomers are 57-76 years old, Generation X are 42-57 years old, Millennials are 26-41 years old, Generation Z are 10-25 years old, and Generation Alpha are 0-9 years old. See Figure 1.

Legitimacy of Generational Labels

As previously mentioned, the age/birth year cohorts and the names associated with them are for the most part made up and have no demographic reasoning behind them. Adding to this confusion is the length of different generational groupings changing from generation to generation. The only grouping that is based off a distinct demographic event is the Baby Boomer generation. The remaining labels were created by the media and consultants looking for ways to capitalize on what are perceived differences between the groups to make a profit.[8]

For researchers, consultants, and publication writers and editors, picking the winning label for the next generation and becoming “the” authority on that particular generation can be highly lucrative.[9] Consultants and the media add to this “generational warfare” by making generalized claims about how one cohort is so different from the others, causing companies to pay ridiculous sums to hire experts to explain these differences.[10] The Wall Street Journal and Bobby Duff, author of “The Generation Myth,” report that in 2015, American companies spent around $70 million on generational consulting.[11]

Further proof of the illegitimacy of generational labels is the consistent low and mixed results of people within each generational group identifying with the group they are assigned to. Based on a poll taken by The Atlantic in 2021, only 45% of those polled born in between 1981 and 1996 even identify as “millennials.”[12] See Figure 2. The only individuals polled who overwhelmingly self-identified as the age cohort to which they are assigned were Baby Boomers at 74%. Even more puzzling were the results from a 2015 Pew Research Center survey in which 33% of “millennials” self-identified as “generation x.”[13] See Figure 3.

However, just because generational labels are not supported by empirical evidence, that doesn’t mean similarities do not exist among groups of people that belong to the same generational label or that differences do not exist among people who have been assigned to different generational labels. Rather, the argument is that those similarities or differences cannot simply be attributed to a defined range of birth years. In fact, these similarities or differences are better supported by other factors, such as individual differences, the period of time that people were assessed, external environmental factors, and individual development changes.[16]

Yet, despite the lack of empirical evidence supporting generational labels and the stereotypes that have been attached thereto, we still love to use them. Research has shown that the reason why people gravitate back to using generational labels and accepting reasoning based on stereotypes is because the human brain loves cognitive shortcuts.[17] As David P. Costanza and Lisa M. Finkelstein put it, “[g]eneralizations and heuristics save us time, and anything timesaving is hard to purposefully part with in exchange for commitment to the extra cognitive effort it takes to discern people’s individual qualities.”[18]

Stereotypes associated with generational labels are often false and over-generalizations

Relying on stereotypes that have been assigned to different generational labels is not only fallacious, but it can also be harmful. Most of these stereotypes, beyond the ones sensationalized by the media, are rooted in misguided human perception rather than any concrete evidence.[19] Take for example the classic gripe of older individuals that “kids these days” are in some way lesser regarding a particular trait than when said older individual was the same age.

In a 2019 study, two researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara found that the degree to which an older individual negatively views certain traits of “kids these days” is associated with their current perception of their embodiment of that trait.[20] For example, the researchers asked their sample participants to what extent they believe “kids these days” enjoy reading compared to when they were young, then took an objective measure of how well-read the sample participants were.[21]It was found that the more well-read an individual was, the more they believed “kids these days” do not like to read.[22] This study found the “trait­ specific tendency to see today’s youth as especially lacking on those traits on which one particularly excels (respect for elders, intelligence, and enjoying reading).”[23]

The use of generational labels in the legal profession among peers or in the workplace lacks any discernible value

Generational labels have no value. Rather than focusing on the stereotypes about a particular generational group, the legal professional, and the workplace as a whole, should shift their focus to the differences among individuals that actually impact performance and outcome.[24] Like we stated previously, the differences that can be seen among different generations exist for reasons, such as social changes, technological changes,[25] and other developmental changes in the workforce, not because of generational memberships.[26]

The age that a person becomes an attorney is not set in stone. Some people opt for the kindergarten straight through law school route and take no time off between high school and undergrad or undergrad and law school. Others may take a year or two off to work before law school, such as these authors, or law may be a second career coming later in life. This variance further blurs the lines and usefulness of generational labels. When two people enter the field of law at the same time, maybe even hired at the same firm, but one is a “baby boomer” and the other a “millennial,” do these arbitrary terms matter or provide any significant information on what they know about the law or how well they work? We think not.

Idaho is unique with our small and cordial bar. Even from our limited time in practice, we both have noticed the welcoming and professional attitudes of our peers all over the state. Generational labels are easy to use and confirm our preconceived, and quite often incorrect, assumptions and stereotypes about those we don’t know outside our own age cohorts. We want to ensure that the civility and professionalism we have had the pleasure of experiencing in our first couple of years in practice continues for all future attorneys joining the Idaho State Bar. Dropping these arbitrary generational labels appears to be one easy way that we in the legal profession, at least here in Idaho, can work towards keeping civility and professionalism at the forefront of our interactions with our peers.

From our perspective, the only generational difference that holds any value in the legal profession is the debate of one or two spaces after a period.

---

Endnotes

[1] Jona Jone, 5 Reasons Baby Boomers are Tech Resistant, (June 8, 2016), https://www.inman.com/2016/06/08/5-reasons-baby-boomers-are-tech-resistant/.

[2] Lavanya Ramanathan, We Thought Gen X Was a Bunch of Slackers. Now They’re the Suits, (March 1, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/we-thought-gen-x-was-a-bunch-of-slackers-now-theyre-the-suits/2017/03/01/eba47346-f924-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html.

[3] Izzy Greenblatt, Millennials are killing…department stores, (July 16, 2019), https://www.abc10.com/article/life/millennials-are-killingdepartment-stores/103-e066d55e-d8d1-437d-90a5-223917c31035.

[4] Priya Elan, ‘No skinny jeans’: Gen Z launch TikTok attack on millennial fashion, (February 12, 2021) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/12/no-skinny-jeans-gen-z-launch-tiktok-attack-millennial-fashion.

[5] Joel Stein, Gen Z Has Arrived At the Office–And It’s Freaking Everyone Out, (December 29, 2021), https://www.lamag.com/article/gen-z-has-arrived-at-the-office-and-its-freaking-everyone-out/.

[6] https://www.pewresearch.org/about/.

[7] Michael Dimock, Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins, (January 17, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/. See also Joe Pinsker, Oh No, They’ve Come Up With Another Generation Label, https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/02/generation-after-gen-z-named-alpha/606862/.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. See also Joe Pinsker, ‘Gen Z’ Only Exists in Your Head, (October 14, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/10/millennials-gen-z-boomers-generations-are-fake/620390/.

[11] Lindsay Gellman, Helping Bosses Decode Millennials—for $20,000 an Hour, (May 18, 2016), https://www.wsj.com/articles/helping-bosses-decode-millennialsfor-20-000-an-hour-1463505666. See also Louis Menand, It’s Time to Stop Talking About “Generations”, (October 18, 2021), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/its-time-to-stop-talking-about-generations.

[12] Pinsker, Supra note 7.

[13] Pew Research Center, Most Millennials Resist the ‘Millennial’ Label, (September 3, 2015), https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/09/03/most-millennials-resist-the-millennial-label/9-2-2015_03/.

[14] Pinsker, Supra note 10.

[15] Pew Research Center, Supra Note 13.

[16] David P. Costanza & Lisa M. Finkelstein, Generationally Based Differences in the Workplace: Is

There a There There?, Industrial and Organizational Psychology 3, available at CJO 2015 doi:10.1017/iop.2015.15.

[17] Id. at 5.

[18] Id.

[19] John Protzko & Johnathan W. Schooler, Kids these days: Why the youth of today seem lacking, (October 16, 2019), 1–2, available at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav5916.

[20] Id. at 2.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.at 3.

[24] Costanza & Finkelstein, Supra note 16 at 11.

[25] Pinsker, Supra note 10.

[26] Costanza & Finkelstein, Supra note 16.

Debora Kristensen Grasham

Preface by Hon. Candy W. Dale

Published March/April 2022

Preface

As I began my third year of law school, I recall watching President Reagan’s historical nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman associate justice to the Supreme Court of the United States.  She was confirmed by the Senate by a 99-0 vote on September 11, 1981. This “first” signified a “beginning” that lead lawyers like myself to realize that our previously unthinkable dreams of women taking seats on the bench among men could be a reality.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg followed as the second associate justice in 1993, and to date three others have served on the highest court in our country.  Idaho too has had its own “firsts” during my career, starting with Deborah Bail who was the first woman appointed as District Judge in 1983, followed by Linda Copple Trout as the second in 1990.  Cathy Silak was the first woman appointed to the Idaho Court of Appeals in 1990, followed by Karen Lansing as the second in 1993.  Linda Copple Trout was the first woman appointed to the Idaho Supreme Court in 1992, followed by Cathy Silak as the second in 1993.  And in 2008, with my appointment as United States Magistrate Judge, I became the first woman to serve on the federal bench in Idaho.  I am pleased to now say that my appointment was also just a beginning, as Debora Kristensen Grasham will join the federal bench in Idaho as a United States Magistrate Judge on or about April 1, 2022, upon my transition to recall status.

Over the past 20 plus years, as evidenced by the article that follows and several prior articles, Ms. Grasham has spent countless hours researching and writing about lawyers and jurists who have made contributions to Idaho’s legal history, notably including a focus on the “firsts” who were admitted to the practice of law or who attained a seat on our state and federal courts. Soon, Ms. Grasham will add her own chapter to the history she has preserved about so many of us.  To borrow a quote from former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, “It’s fine to be the first, but you don’t want to be the last.” Welcome to the bench!

—Judge Candy W. Dale

Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once remarked: “People who end up as ‘first’ don’t actually set out to be first.  They set out to do something they love and it just so happens that they are the first to do it.”  Such is the story of Idaho’s first African American woman lawyer and judge, Ida Leggett.  Leggett, a native of Alabama, did not set out to be a “first” in Idaho.  Nonetheless, her determination to become a lawyer led her to Idaho and her unique place in Idaho legal history.

Leggett’s Early Years

Ida Rudolph Leggett was born in 1948 in a small town in Alabama at a time when racial tensions were high.[2] Her father was a sawmill worker and her mother was a schoolteacher. Separate water fountains existed for whites and people of color, along with separate entrances to the courthouse. When Leggett was young, she was not permitted in the whites-only city library.[3] An avid reader, she read anything and everything should could get her hands on. When she was seven, one of the magazines she found was an issue of Ebony with an article about Thurgood Marshall arguing Brown v. Board of Education. When Leggett asked her mother about it, she explained Marshall’s role as chief counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and said that he was “going to change the schools because he could argue in court.”[4] That is when Leggett decided to become a lawyer and help bring about change herself.

Leggett graduated from her segregated high school in 1965 and attended Tuskegee Institute, in Alabama.[5] After just a year and half, however, she got married and dropped out of school. She became a mother, and then a single mother, to three children, before she returned to college.[6] When she applied for financial aid, she was denied based on the argument that she had chosen her career as a mother over other options. Leggett persevered without the financial aid and returned to college later. She graduated from the University of South Florida in Tampa in 1979, the first integrated school she had attended.[7]

Leggett Decides to Go to Law School

After college, Leggett was not sure what to do with her life, even though she had aspirations of becoming a lawyer. Her finances were tight and she had three children and very little support. But she decided, “I can do this myself,” and she began applying to law schools throughout the nation.[8] One day she received a telegram offering a fellowship to pursue her legal education at Gonzaga Law School in Spokane, Washington. Leggett described how she had to pull out a map to see where Washington State was, but she happily accepted the offer.[9] With her three kids in tow, she moved from Florida to Washington in 1979.

Leggett recalls studying for her law school classes at night while her children slept. She attended summer terms at Gonzaga and graduated cum laude after just two and one-half years.[10] During that period, Leggett participated in two moot court teams that won regional championships and one that placed third in the nation.[11] She also worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Spokane. After graduation in 1981, she accepted a clerkship with Chief Justice William Williams of the Washington Supreme Court.[12] Leggett was admitted to the bar in Washington State one year later.

Life After Law School & A Move to Idaho

After her clerkship, Leggett accepted a position with the Lane Powell law firm and worked in civil litigation, including insurance defense and construction law.[13] A few years later, Janet Jenkins, a law school classmate, invited her to move to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to start their own firm. She accepted and practiced civil law for several years at Jenkins & Leggett.

Leggett was admitted to practice law in Idaho on April 25, 1986, and thereby became the first African American woman admitted to the Idaho bar – an accomplishment she did not recognize until years later. Indeed, when she did learn that she was the first African American woman pass the bar in Idaho she was perplexed and asked “How can that be? It was the late 80s when I passed the bar and I thought there must have been someone else.”[14]  Nonetheless, she was thrilled to learn of her distinction and called it “pretty good, pretty neat.’”

In 1986, Leggett was interviewed by the Associated Press about the racism she had experienced in Coeur d’Alene.[15] Leggett described how her son had been taunted by high school classmates using racial epithets. Her secretary had been followed home by people who yelled the same words, and Leggett described the precautions she herself took each day to stay safe.[16] A newspaper of the day reported:

In September, when bombs rocked the rugged, mountain ringed beauty of smalltown Coeur d’Alene, Ms. Leggett got serious about precautions.

She left markers on the hood of her car each day to warn her if someone tampered with the engine. She drove different routes to and from work.

“No one should have to live this way,” she said. “Probably the only reason we’re here now is because I don’t want him [her son] thinking he has to run for his life.”[17]

Nevertheless, she persisted.

Leggett’s Good Work Gets Noticed

Within a few years, Leggett came to the attention of the Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus, and in 1988 he appointed her to the State Commission on Pardons and Parole.[18] In this position, Leggett found herself in a new role as decision maker and having to find consensus with her fellow board members. She was the only woman and only person of color on the commission.

During a 1991 interview, Leggett was asked whether she missed anything about “being in the thick of black culture.”  Her response was personal and reflected the ever-present pressure she faced just by being herself in a white-dominated community:

I do miss that just being a person.  Just being one person of a lot of people.  I’d like to walk in a room and not cause a stir just by walking in.  I miss that sameness.  I miss that – I don’t know what it is, but when my family’s all together – it’s there.  You’re just a person.  And if you do something, you’re doing it for yourself and if you fail, you fail for yourself.  You didn’t do it for every other black person in town.  That’s a product of being the only one who’s visible.[19]

Leggett Applies for Idaho Judgeship

In 1992, Governor Andrus announced his intention of appointing a woman to the open seat on the Idaho Supreme Court. Leggett decided to throw her name into the mix, becoming the first black woman to apply for an Idaho Supreme Court position.[20] During her interview with the Judicial Council, Leggett told the members that the circumstances of her life had forced her to excel—something she would continue to do as a justice. She said she had been so successful in private practice that she would be taking a pay cut if she were named to the Supreme Court. The job paid $74,701.

“I am qualified to do this job; I’m willing and I’m able,” Leggett said. “And because of what my parents have given me, I don’t have any choice but to do a good job.”[21]

Linda Copple Trout was chosen for the position, but that did not end Leggett’s ambition to join the bench. In fact, Trout’s elevation to the Idaho Supreme Court meant that her district court seat in Lewiston was now open. Leggett decided to apply for that seat; at the time, only one other woman served as a district court judge in Idaho, Deborah Bail in Ada County.

Leggett “received strong support from a number of groups” in her judicial application.[22] On November 16, 1992, Governor Andrus appointed Leggett to the district court bench in the Second Judicial District in Lewiston, noting, “I am particularly impressed that she intends to lead the effort to make the citizen more comfortable in what sometimes can feel like the insider’s realm of the courtroom.”[23] In so doing, Leggett became the first African American woman to hold a judicial position in Idaho.

Leggett’s Life in Lewiston

In Lewiston, Leggett was “highly visible as an African American woman, a woman professional, and an African American judge.”[24] The lack of privacy made her vulnerable to threats and, unfortunately, she received them. One particularly horrendous example occurred during her presiding over a high-profile murder trial. Leggett received racially motivated death threats and had a cross burned on her front lawn.[25] In 1998, Leggett decided that the “isolation and fishbowl nature of her life” was too much, resigned her position, and moved to Seattle to be closer to her family.[26]  She later remarried and worked in Washington state.

A colleague and friend of hers, Judge Richard D. Eadie of the King County Superior Court in Seattle, Washington, described Leggett as:

a quiet but determined woman who has endured poverty, racism—both overt and subtle—and the challenges of education and employment as a single parent and sole support of three children. She is an accomplished lawyer and jurist; a person with dignity and class. She has faced enormous challenges, but always found the inner strength to overcome.[27]

Conclusion

Leggett’s achievements in Idaho legal history are even more remarkable when put in context.  Idaho has never been a racially diverse state and woman have been traditionally underrepresented in the bar. According to the U. S. Census Bureau, as of July 2019, Idaho’s population was 81.6 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic or Latino, 1.7 percent Native American, 1.6 percent Asian, and 0.9 percent African American.[28] As of October 2021, there were a total of 5,429 active attorneys in the state,[29] with women making up about 27 percent of them.[30]  In the late 1980s when Leggett came to Idaho, these numbers were even less diverse.  Nonetheless, Leggett worked hard to become Idaho’s first woman African American lawyer and judge and is entitled to a special place of honor in Idaho legal history.

BIO: Debora Kristensen Grasham has been a partner in the Boise law firm of Givens Pursley for more than 22 years.  On or about April 1, 2022, she will become the next U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Idaho, following U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale’s transition to recall status.  At that time, Idaho will have reached another “first” – having two women serve on its federal bench.

---

Endnotes

[1] Much of this article is taken from a longer article by the author entitled The First Women of Idaho’s Bench and Bar published in Volume 32 of Western Legal History and available at https://www.njchs.org/current-issues/.

[2] Richard D. Eadie, Judge Ida Leggett: A Pioneer Jurist in Idaho, Washington State Courts, Equal Justice Newsletter, Mar. 2000, available at https://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/pos_mjc/newsletter/032000/equaljustice.cfm?article=leggett.htm.

[3] Id.

[4] Id. See also Ida Leggett: First African-American Woman Admitted to the Idaho Bar,” Idaho Legal History Society Newsletter, Spring 2017, at 3.

[5] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[6] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[7] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[8] Leggett in Idaho, supra note 4 at 3.

[9] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2; Leggett in Idaho, supra note 4 at 3.

[10] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[11] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[12] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[13] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[14] Aisha Monet, Interview with the Honorable Ida Leggett (March 8, 2016 and May 24, 2016), available at https://thecoloredgirls.wordpress.com/.

[15] Lawyer Is Fearful of New Idaho Life, South Idaho Press, Dec. 31, 1986, at 3.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[19] Randall Kenan, Walking on Water: Black American Lives at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century 240 (Vintage Books Ed., 2000).

[20] Idaho Judicial Council Begins Screening Applicants for Vacancy, The Times News, Aug. 16, 1992, at 12.

[21] Id.

[22] Andrus Mulls Lewiston Court Seat, The Times News, Nov. 13, 1992, at 10.

[23] Id.

[24] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[25] Kathy Hedberg, Standing in Judgment, The Lewiston Tribune, Oct. 26, 2018.

[26] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[27] Pioneer Jurist, supra note 2.

[28] See United States Census Bureau, Quick Facts, Idaho, available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ID/RHI825219#RHI825219.

[29] See Idaho State Bar, Membership Count as of 10/5/21, available at https://isb.idaho.gov/licensing-mcle/membership-count-statuses/.

[30] See Jessica R. Gunder, Women in Law: A Statistical Review of the Status of Women Attorneys in Idaho, 62 The Advocate, Feb. 2019, at 23.