Witzke v. Idaho State Bar
| Decision Date | 11 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-00478-REP |
| Parties | BROOKS M. WITZKE, Plaintiff, v. IDAHO STATE BAR, ROBERT A. BERRY, individually and in his official capacity as a DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO, LAWRENCE G. WASDEN, individually and in his official capacity as the ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO, KRISTIN L. BJORKMAN, individually and in her official capacity as the PRESIDENT OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, JOSEPH N. PIRTLE, individually and in his official capacity as the IDAHO STATE BAR COUNSEL, MITCHELL W. BROWN, individually and in his official capacity as the DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FOR THE COUNTIES OF CARIBOU, BEAR LAKE, FRANKLIN, and BANNOCK, COUNTIES WITH THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, THE COUNTY OF CARIBOU, IDAHO, THE COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, IDAHO, THE COUNTY OF BEAR LAKE, IDAHO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
(DKT. 81)
Before the Court is the State[1] Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 83). All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 32).
Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction on November 19, 2022 (Dkts. 1, 3). The Complaint raises five counts against the Idaho State Bar (the “ISB”), several ISB officials, attorneys who have represented the ISB and related officials in prior proceedings, a state-court Judge, and several counties. Plaintiff has broken his Complaint into two “parts” each of which is summarized separately. However, before discussing Plaintiff's specific allegations, a brief overview of the administrative steps involved in the Idaho Bar application process is helpful.
The ISB administers the bar exam twice each year, first in February and again in July. See Idaho Bar Commission Rule 203(b) [hereinafter “I.B.C.R.”]. Upon receiving an application, the ISB Board of Commissioners (“the Board”) assesses the applicant's eligibility to practice law, including, as is pertinent here, investigating whether an applicant possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law. I.B.C.R. 208(a). If an application raises character and fitness concerns, the Board may refer that application to an ISB subcommittee, the Character and Fitness Committee (“CF Committee”), which conducts an investigation into the applicant and makes recommendations to the Board about the application. I.B.C.R. 208(b).
After their application is referred to the CF Committee, the applicant may be required to appear before the CF Committee to answer questions concerning their character and fitness, in a process known as a “Rule 208 examination.” I.B.C.R. 208(c); I.B.C.R. 209(c). Using character and fitness standards supplied by the I.B.C.R., the CF Committee may, through a majority vote of a quorum of members, “approve or recommend denial or conditional admission of an [a]pplicant.” I.B.C.R. 209(e)-(f). If the CF Committee recommends denial, the application goes back before the Board.
Following a recommendation from the CF Committee, the Board may (i) approve the application, (ii) deny or modify the application, (iii) issue a recommendation of conditional admission, or (iv) request additional investigation. I.B.C.R. 215(a). If the Board chooses to deny the application, an applicant has twenty-one days to after receiving notice of the adverse decision to request a “show-cause” hearing. I.B.C.R. 215(d). The Board may schedule a showcause hearing “at a time convenient to the Applicant and the Board” and must provide an applicant at least fourteen days' notice of the hearing date. I.B.C.R. 215(f)(1). Show cause hearings are conducted “in an informal manner reasonably calculated to protect the rights of the Applicant and the Board” and conducted by Board-appointed hearing officers. I.B.C.R. 215(f)(2)-(4). After a show cause hearing, the Board has fourteen days from receipt of the hearing transcript to enter a decision on an application. I.B.C.R. 215(g).
If an application is denied following a show cause hearing, the applicant may take one last procedural step and petition the Idaho Supreme Court to review the Board's decision within twenty-one days. I.B.C.R. 216(a), (d). The Idaho Supreme Court reviews the Board's decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, either with or without a hearing. I.B.C.R. 216(b), (g).
Needless to say, navigating this process - which involves multiple rounds of independent review by a number judicial and quasi-judicial authorities - can be lengthy. For reference, Plaintiff's first bar application process took around two years from start to finish.
Shortly after the denial of his first bar application, Plaintiff filed a second bar application in April of 2022, this time to sit for the July 2022 Idaho Bar Exam. Id. ¶ 22. Before submitting his second application, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (“Witzke I”) in this Court against the ISB and several ISB officials. See Witzke v. Idaho State Bar, 1:22-cv-00090-REP.[2] Plaintiff requested a declaration that several bar admission rules were illegal and an injunction preventing their enforcement against him during his second application process. Id. As Witzke I was pending, the ISB referred Plaintiff's second application for character and fitness review and notified Plaintiff that, because of the time needed for the review, his application had been deferred to the February 2023 Bar Exam. V. Compl. ¶ 26 (Dkt. 1). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit (“Witzke II”) against the ISB and several ISB officials. Witzke v. Idaho State Bar, et al., 4:22-cv-00253-REP, wherein he sought an injunction forcing the ISB to issue a decision on his second bar application before the July 2022 Bar Exam. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff alleged that he would suffer irreparable injury because his passing Multistate Bar Exam (“MBE”) score from another jurisdiction would expire before the February 2023 Idaho Bar Exam.[3] Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Witzke II after the parties reached an agreement that allowed an extension of Plaintiff's passing MBE score until February 2023. Id. ¶¶ 32-33.
Following the dismissal of Witzke II, the ISB held a Rule 208 examination on Plaintiff's second bar application on August 22, 2022. Id. ¶ 34. After the Rule 208 examination, the Committee waited until October 13, 2022, to recommend denial of his application. Id. ¶ 34, 40. Minutes from the October 13, 2022, CF Committee meeting showed that the decision to recommend denial was based, in part, on the Committee's concerns with Plaintiff's litigation conduct in Witzke I. Id. ¶ 42. Following the CF Committee's recommendation, Plaintiff understood that the Board would not hold a vote on adopting that recommendation until late December of 2022. Id. ¶ 47. Concerned that his application would not be processed before the February 2023 Bar Exam, Plaintiff tried to persuade the Board to hold an earlier vote. Id. ¶¶ 4751. After threatening another lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that the Board assured him that it would vote on his application at a November 9, 2022 hearing. Id. ¶ 52. Yet, on November 8, 2022, Defendant Pirtle emailed Plaintiff to inform him that the Board would not vote on his application at that time because the CF Committee's written findings of fact and conclusions of law were not complete. Id. ¶¶ 54-55.
Plaintiff then initiated this lawsuit on November 19, 2022. V. Compl. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff's Verified Complaint was accompanied by an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. PI Mot. (Dkt. 3). Like Witzke II, Plaintiff requested this court to issue an injunction requiring the Board to issue a decision on his application and schedule a show-cause hearing before the February 2023 Bar Exam. Id.
The Court heard argument on Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction on December 20, 2022 and denied the Motion on December 23, 2022. MDO (Dkt. 50). In the course of resolving that Motion, the State Defendants informed the Court that the Board had met on December 9, 2022 and voted to deny Plaintiff's second application. Def.'s Resp. to Pln.'s PI Mot., Pirtle Dec. ¶ 20 (Dkt. 41-1). Then, in late January of 2023, Plaintiff informed the Court that a show cause hearing had been scheduled for his application on March 8, 2023. Pln.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Stay ¶ 2 (Dkt. 83-1). Yet, Plaintiff never received a show cause hearing because he withdrew his second application on March 7, 2023. See Pln.'s Suppl. Brief at 1 (Dkt. 112). Finally, on April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a third bar application. Id.
Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Verified Complaint raise claims related to his second application process. First, in Count I Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to have the Board issue a decision and hold a show cause hearing on his second bar application. V. Compl. at 35 (Dkt. 1). In Count II, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that I.B.C.R. 215(a) and 215(f)(1) (the “Challenged Rules” or “Rules”) violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and an injunction (i) preventing the enforcement of those rules in a way that imposes needless delay and (ii) requiring the State Defendants to revise those rules to add specific deadlines. Id. at 44. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that these challenges apply with equal force to his third bar application. Pln.'s Suppl. Brief at 4 (Dkt. 112).
In addition to his claims regarding his second (now third) bar application, Plaintiff alleges that the State Defendants also conspired to retaliate against him for litigating Witzke I,...
To continue reading
Request your trial