Attorney Privately Reprimanded for Misconduct

Idaho: 140 Idaho 800, 102 P.3d 1119

This case came in front of the Supreme Court of Idaho in November of 2004. The attorney (defendant and petitioner) filed a petition for review of the Hearing Committee of the Professional Conduct Board (HCPCB) of the Idaho State Bar. The defendant wanted a review of a decision that was made by the HCPCB where he was found to have engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and recommended that he receive a private reprimand. The attorney, who was prosecuting a defendant in a criminal case, obtained a transcript of the grand jury testimony in that case without an order of the court and then gave a copy of that transcript to a third party engaged in civil litigation against the same defendant. When reviewing the hearing committee's decision in an attorney discipline matter, the Supreme Court independently reviews the record and assesses the evidence to see if the misconduct was proven by clear and convincing evidence.

The rules of law for this case include:
Idaho Criminal Rule provide that no other person present in grand jury proceeding shall disclose to any other person what was said or done in a proceeding, except by order of any court for good cause shown, did not apply to attorney who was prosecuting a defendant in a criminal case, absent showing that attorney was present in the grand jury proceeding. Criminal Rule 6.4(c).

Conduct of attorney, who was prosecuting a defendant in a criminal case, in obtaining a transcript of grand jury testimony in that case without an order of court and then giving a copy of that transcript to a third party engaged in civil litigation against same defendant constituted conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, for purposes of attorney disciplinary proceeding. Criminal Rules 5.2(a), 6.3(c)

Attorney who was prosecuting a defendant in a criminal case was not an “agent of the tax commission,” for purposes of statute making it a felony for any agent of the tax commission to knowingly divulge or make known to any person in any manner any tax return or tax information whatsoever obtained directly or indirectly by him in the discharge of his duties. I.C. § 63-3076.

A hearing committee does have authority to resolve issues of law that arise in connection with its determination of an attorney discipline matter before it; if either party contends that the committee's resolution of the matter is based upon an erroneous interpretation of law, that party can seek review in the Supreme Court.


The Idaho Supreme Court held and affirmed that:
1. The defendant’s petition for review was sufficient under Bar Commission Rules.
2. The conduct of the defendant was prejudicial to the administration. This was confirmed by evidence that showed him obtaining a transcript of the grand jury testimony in a criminal case where he represented the defendant without an order of the court and then giving a copy of that transcript to a third party that was engaged in a civil litigation suit against the same defendant.
3. The attorney (defendant) was not an “agent of the tax commission,” for purposes of statute making it a felony for any agent of the tax commission to knowingly divulge tax information obtained in the discharge of his duties.
4. Attorney’s conducted warranted private reprimand.