## Facts

- Steven H. Warrick, an Idaho lawyer admitted in 1983, served as the elected Elmore County Prosecuting Attorney from 1996 to April 1, 1998.
- Warrick prosecuted Ronald E. Calfee for felony trafficking in methamphetamine.
- During the prosecution, Warrick wrote “waste of sperm” and “scumbag” next to Calfee’s name on a jail inmate control board visible to jail and law-enforcement staff.
- The prosecution relied on witness Scott Spaulding, who testified pursuant to a plea agreement in Spaulding’s own cases.
- The plea agreement contemplated Spaulding pleading guilty to four of nine felony charges, dismissal of five charges, and a State sentencing recommendation of eight-year unified sentences with retained jurisdiction.
- At trial, Warrick questioned Spaulding in a manner that suggested Spaulding did not know of any specific sentencing recommendation in exchange for his testimony.
- Complaints were filed with the Idaho State Bar based on both incidents, resulting in formal disciplinary proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether Warrick’s written insults about a criminal defendant on a jail inmate control board violated I.R.P.C. 4.4(a).
2. Whether Warrick violated I.R.P.C. 3.3(a)(4) by presenting, or failing to correct, false or misleading testimony about a cooperating witness’s plea agreement.
3. What sanction was appropriate for any proven violations.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Professional Conduct Board’s findings that Warrick violated I.R.P.C. 4.4(a) and I.R.P.C. 3.3(a)(4).
- The court suspended Warrick from the practice of law for 30 days.
- The court required Warrick to pass the MPRE as a condition of reinstatement.
- The court awarded costs to the Idaho State Bar.

## Legal Principles

- I.R.P.C. 4.4(a) forbids a lawyer, in representing a client, from using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person; degrading written remarks about an accused made in connection with a pending prosecution can violate the rule even if the accused does not see them.
- Prosecutors are subject to professional conduct rules in interactions related to pending cases, including conduct occurring in law-enforcement settings outside the courtroom.
- I.R.P.C. 3.3(a)(4) requires candor toward the tribunal and prohibits knowingly offering false evidence or allowing false evidence to stand uncorrected.
- When a cooperating witness testifies pursuant to a plea agreement, the prosecutor must ensure the fact and material terms of the inducement are not obscured so that the tribunal is not misled about the witness’s motives and credibility.
- In attorney discipline matters, the court may defer to the disciplinary board’s factual determinations and credibility assessments when supported by the record.
- Sanctions may include suspension and remedial conditions (such as MPRE passage) to protect the public and the justice system and to deter similar misconduct.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court disciplined a prosecuting attorney for gratuitous, degrading comments about a defendant made in connection with a pending case and for permitting misleading testimony that obscured material terms of a cooperating witness’s plea inducement, imposing a 30-day suspension, an MPRE requirement for reinstatement, and costs.


Idaho State Bar v. Warrick, 137 Idaho 86, 44 P.3d 1141 (Idaho 2002)