Opinion ID: 2550938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Idaho Professional Conduct Board Have Jurisdiction to Recommend Findings of Fact and a Sanction to this Court?

Text: Everard contends that the Professional Conduct Board of the Idaho State Bar (Idaho Board) lacked jurisdiction to make any recommendations in these proceedings because of two alleged procedural irregularities. The alleged irregularities are: (1) issuing an order to show cause containing a name stamp of the Idaho Board Chair rather than the Chair's handwritten signature; and (2) serving the order to show cause by regular mail rather than by certified mail, return receipt requested. The name stamp on the order to show cause consisted of the Chair's name and the statement, Mailed Without Signature to Avoid Delay. It was a sufficient signature to commence these proceedings. See State v. Fees, 140 Idaho 81, 90 P.3d 306 (2004) (judge's name on search warrant signed by peace officer at direction of judge had the same validity as if the judge had personally signed his own name). Everard does not contend that the Chair did not authorize the use of the name stamp on the order to show cause in place of her manual signature. Neither the Idaho Bar Commission Rules nor any other provision of law requires that the Chair of the Idaho Board personally sign the order to show cause rather than use a name stamp. Idaho Bar Commission Rule 523(a) states, Service of complaints and petitions under these Rules shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the lawyer's address as filed with the Idaho State Bar. The Bar's failure to mail the order to show cause by certified mail, return receipt requested, did not affect the validity of these proceedings. The return receipt would be important if there was an issue of whether Everard received the order to show cause. Because he appeared in these proceedings to defend against the order to show cause, however, that was not an issue.