Opinion ID: 2525415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the hearing committee erred in admitting as evidence a settlement agreement executed between frazier and the beneficiaries of the bastian estate.

Text: The hearing committee considered the settlement agreement between Frazier and the Bastian estate whereby he agreed to repay $35,000 in fees in its consideration of the claim that he breached a fiduciary duty to the estate. Frazier argues the hearing committee erred in admitting the agreement because it violated I.R.E. 408. [3] Frazier therefore contends that since there is no admissible evidence supporting the decision that he charged excessive fees, the finding should be reversed. The rules of evidence apply during bar disciplinary procedures. I.B.C.R. 522(e). The Idaho Rules of Evidence provide that a settlement agreement may not be offered into evidence to prove liability. Idaho Rule of Evidence (I.R.E.) 408. The rule does not require exclusion, however, `if the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness.' Perry v. Magic Valley Medical Center, 134 Idaho 46, 57, 995 P.2d 816, 827 (2000), citing I.R.E. 408. The hearing committee overruled Frazier's objection to the agreement's admission and the chairman stated that [t]he settlement agreement does contain admissions against interest that we believe are admissible. I think you can develop in your own questioning, Mr. Loats, whether those admissions against interest pertain to this claim or not. It appears to me at this point in time, anyway, the Settlement Agreement is a separate claim and not the claim at hand, so I am going to admit the Settlement Agreement. An admission against interest is not an exception to I.R.E. 408. The rule excludes the admission of a settlement agreement into evidence to prove liability. No other purpose for its admission has been identified. The settlement agreement should not have been admitted into evidence nor considered in determining Frazier's culpability. The issue regarding specific notation in the agreement, that it is not to be held confidential from the ISB, does not render the document admissible to prove liability, though the agreement may be utilized as a mitigating factor in considering sanctions to be imposed, if liability is established from other evidence.