Idaho Supreme Court

In the Matter of the Petition for the Supreme Court Review-Request for Hearing. James M. Runsvold, Petitioner, V…

October 24, 1996129 Idaho 419

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the private reprimand imposed on attorney James M. Runsvold for violating Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 by communicating directly with his ex‑wife, a represented party, even though he was proceeding pro se. The Court held that Rule 4.2 applies to pro se attorneys, that substantial competent evidence supported the violation, that actual harm need not be shown, and that a private reprimand was the proper sanction. Justice McDevitt, Trout and Schroeder joined the opinion, with Justice Swanstrom concurring.

Holding

  • Does Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 apply to an attorney who is representing himself pro se?. Yes, Rule 4.2 applies to attorneys acting pro se because a pro se attorney is considered to be representing a client.
  • Is there substantial and competent evidence that Runsvold violated Rule 4.2?. Yes, the record contains substantial and competent evidence that Runsvold communicated about the subject of the representation directly with the represented opposing party.
  • Must actual harm be shown to establish a violation of Rule 4.2, and is a private reprimand the appropriate sanction?. No actual harm need be proved for a Rule 4.2 violation, and a private reprimand is the appropriate sanction in these circumstances.

Docket 22543

Cited authorities

  • Rule 4.2
  • R. 509(c)(9)
  • Rule 4.2
  • Rule 4.2
  • Rule 4.2
  • Rule 4.2
  • Rule 4.2
  • Rule 4.2

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF