Opinion ID: 1255297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether i.r.p.c. 1.3 and 1.4 are unconstitutionally vague

Text: Jenkins argues that the requirements of acting with reasonable diligence and promptness, I.R.P.C. 1.3, and keeping a client reasonably informed, and explaining a matter to the extent reasonably necessary, I.R.P.C. 1.4(a), (b), are unconstitutionally vague. A statute is unconstitutionally vague when its language does not convey sufficiently definite warnings as to the proscribed conduct, and its language is such that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. Krueger v. Board of Professional Discipline, 122 Idaho 577, 580, 836 P.2d 523, 526 (1992), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1277, 122 L.Ed.2d 672 (1993) (quoting Wyckoff v. Board of County Comm'rs of Ada County, 101 Idaho 12, 15, 607 P.2d 1066, 1069 (1980)). This standard has been held to apply to rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers for the revocation, suspension, or discipline of engineers. H & V Eng'g v. Idaho State Board of Professional Engrs. & Land Surveyors, 113 Idaho 646, 649, 747 P.2d 55, 58 (1987). We apply this standard to the determination of whether the I.R.P.C. 1.3 and 1.4 are unconstitutionally vague. I.R.P.C. 1.3 requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. The comments to the rule explain the meaning of the rule and provide examples to clarify the rule. The comments define reasonable diligence and promptness as pursuing a matter for a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience, acting with commitment and dedication to the interests of a client, acting with a zeal in advocacy on the clients behalf, and avoiding procrastination in the representation of a client. These refinements on the rule provide ample notice of the prohibited conduct such that persons can be warned of what conduct will constitute a violation of I.R.P.C. 1.3. I.R.P.C. 1.4(a) provides that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a manner and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. I.R.P.C. 1.4(b) provides that a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. The comments to I.R.P.C. 1.4, like those for I.R.P.C. 1.3, provide explanations and examples to clarify and further define the rules. Keeping a client reasonably informed is defined as giving the client sufficient information to participate intelligently in the case, providing the client with relevant facts, and informing the client of communications from another party, including settlement offers. The adequacy of communication, according to the comments to I.R.P.C. 1.4, depends on the kind of assistance involved, but may include explaining general case strategies and prospects of success. The rule and the comments provide sufficient warning of the types of conduct that constitute a violation of the provision. The I.R.P.C. 1.3 and 1.4 and their comments provide adequate warning on their face of the conduct which is prohibited such that the rules, as applied to petitioners, adequately inform them of the standards by which they are to be judged. I.R.P.C. 1.3 and 1.4 are not unconstitutionally vague.