Idaho State Bar v. Warrick
Idaho Supreme Court
137 Idaho 86 (2002)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Prosecutor Steven Warrick (defendant) admitted writing “waste of sperm” and “scumbag” next to Ronald Calfee’s name on the inmate-control board where Calfee was jailed. At the time, Warrick was in charge of prosecuting Calfee for dealing methamphetamines. Warrick claimed he meant only to humor law-enforcement officers working at the jail, only a few people saw the words, and Calfee never saw or heard about them. Someone nonetheless filed complaints against Warrick with the Idaho State Bar (ISB) (plaintiff). The ISB filed a formal disciplinary action alleging Warrick violated the ethics rule that prohibits an attorney from engaging in conduct serving only to embarrass, delay, or burden someone while representing a client, including appealing to or engendering bias against someone for improper reasons, as well as the rule that prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Professional Responsibility Board (board) granted summary judgment for the ISB as to the first rule but for Warrick as to the second. Warrick appealed the summary judgment for the ISB, arguing he was not representing anyone when he wrote the words and did not mean to embarrass, appeal to, or engender bias against Calfee. The ISB’s counsel countered that Warrick violated both rules but conceded that the court need not find violation of the second rule if it affirmed violation of the first.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.