Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Idaho State Bar v. Dodge

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 22, 2005No. 30498Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Eismann

At the time herein relevant, Rule 3.3(a) of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct (IRPC) provided, “A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.” There is no question that Dodge made a false statement of material fact to a tribunal when she told the magistrate judge that Mr. Ford had “pulled a shotgun” on a peace officer. That assertion was admittedly false, and Dodge certainly knew that such assertion was likely to be regarded as important to the magistrate judge when setting bail. The issue is whether the Bar proved by clear and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jones v. Big Lost River Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Idaho State Bar v. MalminIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Idaho State Bar v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1995
  4. A v. Idaho State BarIdaho Supreme Court · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API