Notice of Public Discipline

The rules for discipline of Idaho lawyers are established by the Idaho Supreme Court, through Section V of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules.  IBCR 521 provides for two types of disciplinary sanctions:  private discipline (for less serious violations) and public discipline (for more serious violations).  Only public discipline sanctions are posted.

Inquiries regarding public discipline cases may be directed to:  Bar Counsel's Office, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, (208) 334-4500.

 

Recent Public Discipline Notices (Issued Within the Past Six Months)
Prior Public Discipline Notices (Alphabetical by Attorney Last Name)

 

Recent Public Discipline Notices (Within the Past Six Months)

CRAIG R. JORGENSEN
(Suspension)

On June 5, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order imposing a previously withheld suspension from a prior disciplinary case on Pocatello attorney Craig R. Jorgensen, finding that he violated Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct (“I.R.P.C.”) 5.5 [Unauthorized practice of law] and 1.15(d) [Failure to promptly deliver to client or third party funds that client or third party is entitled to receive].  On October 31, 2012, Mr. Jorgensen received a two-year suspension with all but four months withheld, which he began serving on November 14, 2012, and a three-year period of probation (see January 2013 issue of The Advocate).  In the June 5, 2014 Disciplinary Order, in addition to imposing the withheld suspension from the prior case, the Idaho Supreme Court imposed an additional three-month suspension, thereby making Mr. Jorgensen ineligible for reinstatement until February 14, 2015.  If reinstated to the practice of law, he will then serve the three-year probationary period under the terms and conditions imposed in the October 31, 2012 Disciplinary Order.

The current case involved Mr. Jorgensen’s conduct during his four-month actual suspension.  Two days after his suspension began on November 14, 2012, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an Opinion in a personal injury case in which Mr. Jorgensen had represented the plaintiff, K.A., since 2000.  K.A. sustained permanent injuries as a result of a vehicular accident.  The Supreme Court’s Opinion affirmed the District Court’s Judgment in favor of K.A. in the amount of $1,126,843.01. 

With respect to I.R.P.C. 5.5, Mr. Jorgensen admitted that he continued to practice law after his suspension began.  Although Mr. Jorgensen informed K.A. of his suspension and K.A.’s need to find substitute counsel, and although new counsel substituted into the case, Mr. Jorgensen continued to communicate about the case with K.A., a litigation funding company, US Claims, to which K.A. owed funds after completion of the case which were advanced to him for his personal use, and Medicare.  Mr. Jorgensen also admitted that when the defendant paid the $1.2 million judgment in December 2012, those funds were deposited into his trust account rather than substitute counsel’s trust account and that he periodically disbursed case proceeds totaling $50,000 to K.A. between December 2012 and June 2013.  Mr. Jorgensen admitted that after his suspension and his receipt of the funds, he contacted Medicare and Medicaid to determine whether they had any liens on K.A.’s case proceeds.  Mr. Jorgensen further admitted that he contacted US Claims in January 2013 to inquire whether it would be willing to negotiate a compromise of the funds K.A. owed to it.

With respect to I.R.P.C. 1.15(d), Mr. Jorgensen acknowledged that although he received payment of the $1.2 million judgment in K.A.’s case in December 2012, he did not disburse the bulk of the funds due and owing to K.A., $548,106.62, until September 2013, eight months after receiving the check from the defendant.  Mr. Jorgensen admitted that although he entered into an agreement with US Claims that he would not disburse any case proceeds to K.A. until US Claims’ interests in those proceeds had been paid in full, he made small disbursements to K.A. prior to paying US Claims and did not pay US Claims its monies due from the case proceeds for approximately five months after he received those funds.

The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order further ordered that Mr. Jorgensen shall reimburse the Idaho State Bar for its costs of the hearing, court reporter and hearing transcript.

 
KARL W. KIME
(Suspension)

On May 8, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Coeur d’Alene attorney Karl W. Kime from the practice of law for one year, retroactively to January 1, 2014. 
           
The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Kime violated the terms of his disciplinary probation, as set forth in the Court’s July 19, 2013 Disciplinary Order relating to Mr. Kime’s felony conviction for driving under the influence.  Those probation terms provided that if Mr. Kime tested positive for alcohol at any time while on disciplinary probation, a one-year period of suspension would be imposed.  Mr. Kime tested positive for alcohol in September and October 2013, resulting in probation violations in his underlying criminal case and the disciplinary case.

 
JOLENE C. MALONEY
(Withheld Suspension and Probation)

On May 8, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Boise attorney Jolene C. Maloney from the practice of law for a period of one year with the entire one year withheld and placing her on a disciplinary probation. 

The Idaho Supreme Court found that Ms. Maloney violated Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) [“Commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects”].  The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding and related to the following circumstances. 

In October 2012, Ms. Maloney was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI).  Ms. Maloney pled guilty to that charge and was sentenced in December 2012.  In May 2013, Ms. Maloney was charged in Ada County with misdemeanor charges of DUI (excessive) and driving without privileges.  In June 2013, Ms. Maloney pled guilty to the misdemeanor DUI (excessive) charge and the driving without privileges charge was dismissed.  Ms. Maloney was sentenced and ordered to serve a two-year supervised probation with treatment as ordered by her probation officer.  Ms. Maloney’s guilty plea to the misdemeanor DUI (excessive) charge resulted in probation violations in previous misdemeanor cases, and she was sentenced to sixty days of work release with house arrest on those charges. 

In May 2013, Ms. Maloney obtained the appropriate substance abuse evaluation and began treatment.  Since May 2013, Ms. Maloney has been tested for alcohol and controlled substances and has not tested positive. 

The Disciplinary Order provides that Ms. Maloney’s one-year suspension is withheld subject to the terms and conditions of her probation, which runs through June 14, 2015.  The terms and conditions of probation include:  avoidance of any alcohol or drug-related traffic violations; a program of random urinalysis, with provision that if Ms. Maloney tests positive for alcohol or other tested substances or misses a random urinalysis test, without prior approval, the entire withheld suspension shall be immediately imposed and served; and if Ms. Maloney admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during her period of probation, regardless whether that admission or determination occurs after the expiration of the probationary period, the entire withheld suspension shall be imposed. 

The withheld suspension does not limit Ms. Maloney’s eligibility to practice law.


BRIAN L. BOYLE
(Public Reprimand/Withheld Suspension/Probation)

On March 24, 2014, the Idaho Supreme Court entered a Disciplinary Order issuing a Public Reprimand to Boise attorney Brian L. Boyle.  The Disciplinary Order included a withheld six-month suspension and a one-year disciplinary probation. 

The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Boyle violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a)  [Scope of representation], 1.4 [Communication with client] and 3.3(a) [Candor toward tribunal].  The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Boyle admitted that he violated those rules. 

The formal charge case related to Mr. Boyle’s representation of a client in a contempt action filed against the client’s ex-husband.  Mr. Boyle signed his client’s name on a Verified Motion for Contempt, instructed a notary public to verify that signature, and filed and served the motion.  Thereafter, without his client’s express authorization, Mr. Boyle filed a Notice dismissing the verified motion without prejudice. 

The Disciplinary Order provides that the six-month suspension will be withheld and that Mr. Boyle will serve a one-year period of disciplinary probation subject to the condition that he will serve the withheld suspension if he admits or is found to have violated any Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for conduct that occurred during the probationary period. 

The public reprimand, withheld suspension, and probation do not limit Mr. Boyle’s eligibility to practice law.


DARREN L. McKENZIE
(Suspension, Withheld Suspension and Probation)

On December 9, 2013, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order suspending Nampa attorney Darren L. McKenzie from the practice of law for a period of five years, with 19 months withheld and recommending terms of probation upon any reinstatement.  Mr. McKenzie’s non-withheld suspension runs from June 2, 2010 through November 2, 2013, representing credit for time he served on interim suspension. The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that related to the following circumstances. 

On May 20, 2010, the Idaho State Bar filed a formal charge Complaint and a Petition for Interim Suspension of License to Practice Law with the Idaho Supreme Court.  On June 2, 2010, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order placing Mr. McKenzie on interim suspension effective June 2, 2010. 

The Complaint alleged four counts of professional misconduct.  With respect to Count One, Mr. McKenzie admitted he violated I.R.P.C. 1.3, relating to diligence, 1.4 relating to lack of communication with his client, 1.15(c) relating to the failure to promptly notify and deliver property to his client, 1.15(d) relating to failure to distribute property to his client, and 1.16(d) relating to the failure to return unearned fees and the file upon termination of representation.  Count One related to Mr. McKenzie’s representation of a client in a criminal case.  The client pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea and was sentenced.  In anticipation of his incarceration, the client signed a durable power of attorney appointing Mr. McKenzie as his agent to sell his house.  Mr. McKenzie agreed to deduct his attorney’s fees from the proceeds from the sale.  The house was sold, Mr. McKenzie’s attorney’s fees were paid, he made a deposit to his client’s inmate account and the remainder of the proceeds was placed in a certificate of deposit for the client’s benefit.  However, despite requests, Mr. McKenzie did not communicate with his client nor provide him with an itemized accounting of the funds.  After the Complaint was filed, Mr. McKenzie cooperated with Bar Counsel’s Office and they were jointly able to obtain a release of the funds held in the matured certificate of deposit.  Those funds were then transferred to Mr. McKenzie’s client’s inmate account.  Mr. McKenzie also then provided an accounting of fees and costs relating to that client. 

With respect to Count Three, Mr. McKenzie admitted that he violated I.R.P.C. 1.2 relating to the scope of representation, 1.3 relating to diligence, 1.4 relating to communication, and 1.1.6(d) relating to the failure to protect his client’s interest upon termination.  That count related to Mr. McKenzie’s representation of a client in a divorce modification case.  Mr. McKenzie handled the case and the court took the matter under advisement, pending the submission of separate proposed orders from counsel.  No proposed orders were filed with the court by either counsel.  Mr. McKenzie’s client filed a complaint alleging that Mr. McKenzie failed to expedite his litigation and could not be reached despite several attempts to communicate with him.  Opposing counsel eventually filed an affidavit with the Court to retain the case, Mr. McKenzie’s client eventually retained substitute counsel, and the case was completed.   

With respect to Counts Two and Four, Mr. McKenzie admitted that he violated I.R.P.C. 8.1(b) and I.B.C.R. 504(e) relating to his failure to respond to requests from Bar Counsel about those client’s grievances. 

The Disciplinary Order provides that 41 months of suspension will be served by Mr. McKenzie and 19 months of the suspension will be withheld.  Mr. McKenzie’s 41 month suspension runs from June 2, 2010 through November 2, 2013, representing credit for the time he served on interim suspension.  Mr. McKenzie will serve a two-year probation following any reinstatement subject to conditions of probation specified in the Disciplinary Order.  Those conditions include that Mr. McKenzie will serve an additional 19 month suspension if he admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for a which a public sanction is imposed for any conduct during Mr. McKenzie’s period of probation.  During his probation, Mr. McKenzie must practice under a supervising attorney and provide monthly reports to Bar Counsel attesting that his representations of his clients is consistent with his responsibilities under the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.


B. JOSEPH WELCH
(Public Reprimand/Withheld Suspension/Probation)

On November 21, 2013, the Idaho Supreme Court entered a Disciplinary Order issuing a Public Reprimand to Boise attorney B. Joseph Welch.  The Disciplinary Order included a withheld nine-month suspension and a one-year disciplinary probation. 

The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Welch violated I.R.P.C. 1.4(a)(2) [Communication with client], 1.5(b) [Communication of rate or basis of fee] and 1.5(e) [Division of fee between lawyers not in the same firm].  The Idaho Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Welch admitted that he violated those rules. 

The formal charge case related to Mr. Welch’s representation of a client who had petitioned for guardianship of his stepson after the child’s mother was killed in an auto accident.  A wrongful death action relating to that accident was settled and payments were made to both the child and Mr. Welch’s client. 

In the guardianship case, the child’s natural father moved to terminate the guardianship and his maternal grandfather sought visitation rights.  During the pendency of that case, Mr. Welch and co-counsel requested and received attorney fee payments from the child’s account, which had been created to hold the wrongful death settlement funds.  After several years of litigation regarding the guardianship, Mr. Welch’s client terminated the representation and retained new counsel.  Thereafter, the natural father discovered that attorney’s fees had been paid to Mr. Welch and co-counsel from the child’s account and filed a motion for recoupment of those fees.  After hearing, the Court entered an order directing Mr. Welch and co-counsel to restore all fee payments to the child’s account.  Mr. Welch and co-counsel complied with that court order. 

The Disciplinary Order provides that the nine-month suspension will be withheld and that Mr. Welch will serve a one-year period of probation subject to the condition that he will serve the withheld suspension if he admits or is found to have violated any Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for conduct that occurred during the probationary period. 

The public reprimand, withheld suspension, and probation do not limit Mr. Welch’s eligibility to practice law.


JOHN C. MITCHELL
(Resignation in Lieu of Discipline)

On November 15, 2013, the Idaho Supreme Court entered an Order accepting the resignation in lieu of discipline of Lewiston attorney, John C. Mitchell.  The Idaho Supreme Court’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of a disciplinary proceeding that resulted from Mr. Mitchell’s self-report of professional misconduct. 

The misconduct in question related to three matters.  In the first matter, Mr. Mitchell failed to inform his law firm about his receipt of client fee payments and failed to deposit those payments into his firm’s trust account.  Mr. Mitchell admitted that his conduct violated I.R.P.C. 1.15(a) (failure to hold property of client or third person in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property), 1.15(c) (failure to deposit legal fees and expenses into a client trust account), and 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). 

In the second matter, Mr. Mitchell failed to communicate with his client about the client’s pending civil case and settled that case without his client’s knowledge or consent.  Mr. Mitchell admitted that his conduct violated I.R.P.C. 1.2(a) (failure to abide by client’s decision whether to settle a matter) and 1.4 (failure to reasonably consult with client and keep client reasonably informed about the status of a matter).  In the third matter, Mr. Mitchell admitted that he paid a client’s judgment in a civil case in violation of I.R.P.C. 1.8(e) (lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending litigation). 

The Idaho Supreme Court accepted Mr. Mitchell’s resignation effective November 15, 2013.  By the terms of the Order, Mr. Mitchell may not make application for admission to the Idaho State Bar sooner than five years from the date of his resignation.  If he does make such application for admission, he will be required to comply with all bar admission requirements found in Section II of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules and shall have the burden of overcoming the rebuttable presumption of “unfitness to practice law.” 

By the terms of the Idaho Supreme Court’s Order, Mr. Mitchell’s name was stricken from the records of the Idaho Supreme Court and his right to practice law before the courts in the State of Idaho was terminated on November 15, 2013.


CHRISTOPHER S. LAMONT
(Withheld Suspension/Probation)

On November 14, 2013, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a Disciplinary Order imposing a withheld nine-month suspension and placing Mr. Lamont on disciplinary probation for one year.  

The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Lamont violated I.R.P.C. 1.4 [A lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information] and I.R.P.C. 1.16(d) [Upon termination, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests].  The Disciplinary Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Lamont admitted that he violated I.R.P.C. 1.4 and 1.16(d), relating to his failures to respond to client inquiries, reasonably communicate with clients about their pending cases, and respond to a former client’s requests for documents. 

The Disciplinary Order provides that the nine-month suspension will be withheld and that Mr. Lamont will serve a one-year period of probation, subject to conditions of probation specified in the Order.  Those conditions include that Mr. Lamont will:  (1) serve the withheld suspension if he admits or is found to have violated any Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for a which a public sanction is imposed for any formal charge case filed during the period of probation or for any conduct occurring during the period of probation; (2) make arrangements for a supervising attorney to supervise his law practice during the probationary period; and (3) maintain a valid mailing address on record with the Idaho State Bar. 

The withheld suspension and probation do not limit Mr. Lamont’s eligibility to practice law.

 

Public Discipline Notices - Older Than 6 Months (alphabetical by attorney's last name) PDF File - Get Acrobat Reader

DANNIS M. ADAMSON (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - March 24, 2010

MATTHEW R. AYLWORTH (Public Reprimand)- July 15, 2013

B. TODD BAILEY (Interim Suspension) - May 3, 2013

RICHARD A. BERGENSEN (Disbarment) - October 31, 2011

JAY P. CLARK (Suspension) - July 30, 2012

M. PATRICK DUFFIN (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - September 27, 2012

BRYNINN T. ERICKSON (Interim Suspension) - October 4, 2013

CHERI K. GOCHBERG (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - November 20, 2012

DAVID C. JAQUOT (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - September 27, 2012

CRAIG R. JORGENSEN (Suspension) - October 31, 2012

FIONA A.C. KENNEDY (Disbarment) - August 26, 2013

KARL W. KIME (Withheld Suspension) - July 19, 2013

PHILIP K. KLEINSMITH (Public Reprimand) - April 11, 2013

DOUGLAS K. KNUTSON (Reinstatement to Active Status) - July 15, 2013

DOUGLAS K. KNUTSON (Suspension) - December 28, 2012

THERESA A. MARTIN (Withheld Suspension/Probation) - June 19, 2013

PATRICK J. McCOY (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - June 15, 2009

MICHAEL J. McDONAGH (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - October 31, 2012

MARK T. McHUGH (Disbarment) - September 3, 2009

DRAKE D. MESENBRINK (Suspension) - April 11, 2013

MARK JENKINS MILLER (Suspension) - February 28, 2012

SHAWN C. NUNLEY (Suspension/Probation) - June 15, 2011

SHAWN C. NUNLEY (Suspension) - March 22, 2012

CRAIG D. ODEGAARD (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - July 19, 2010

THOMAS K. OKAI (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - July 28, 2010

BOBBY E. PANGBURN (Disbarment) - March 21, 2013

LARRY D. PURVIANCE (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - August 7, 2013

DARREN S. ROBINS ( Suspension/Withheld Suspension/Probation) - July 27, 2011

EDGAR J. STEELE (Resignation in Lieu of Discipline) - August 1, 2011

D. SCOTT SUMMER (Disbarment) - October 31, 2013

DENNIS C. WEIGT (Suspension) - July 1, 2013

ROCKY L. WIXOM (Withheld Suspension/Probation) - October 31, 2013


PDF File - Get Acrobat Reader Get Acrobat Reader