A recent disciplinary summary from Idaho based in part on sanctions from Washington State:

In the first matter, the attorney] after receiving judgment in favor of his client, filed two affidavits for attorneys’ fees and expenses for traveling to and appearing at an oral argument, which had not in fact taken place yet.  When the oral argument was finally conducted, [he] filed another affidavit for attorneys’ fees and expenses with the correct date of the oral argument and was awarded fees.  The Washington disciplinary case acknowledged that [he] had a high volume collection practice with supervisory authority over a large number of non-lawyer assistants who prepared documents on his behalf and that he failed to supervise his non-lawyer assistants to insure that their conduct was compatible with his professional obligations in that case.

In the second matter, [he] was representing a plaintiff seeking to collect on a previously entered judgment.  [He] signed an application for a writ of garnishment that stated that the judgment debtor had made no payments on the debt and had property that was not exempt from garnishment by any state or federal law, when in fact [he] had information showing both of those statements were false.  The judgment debtor hired counsel who advised [him] that the judgment debtor had made payments on the judgment and included a copy of the judgment debtor’s exemption claim and a motion to quash the garnishment.  [He] had an order pending ex parte that stated that judgment debtor’s bank account held only non-exempt funds and Mr. Aylworth did not inform the court that the judgment debtor was represented by counsel or that he had filed and served him with a notice of exemption and motion to quash the garnishment a week earlier.  The court then signed Mr. Aylworth’s proposed judgment without the benefit of that information.  Mr. Aylworth did not forward that information to the judgment debtor’s counsel or inform the court that the judgment had been entered based on erroneous facts.  When the judgment debtor’s counsel discovered that judgment had been entered without his knowledge, he told Mr. Aylworth that if he did not agree to an order vacating the judgment, he would seek sanctions.  Mr. Aylworth agreed and the judgment was vacated.  The judgment debtor then filed a civil suit against Mr. Aylworth in federal court and the suit settled by payment of $25,000 to the judgment debtor and a waiver of the balance the judgment debtor owed Mr. Aylworth’s client.  Mr. Aylworth also acknowledged that he failed to supervise his non-lawyer assistants to insure that their conduct was compatible with his professional obligations in this matter. 
The public reprimand also provides that Mr. Aylworth will serve a period of probation up to one year.  During that probation, he is required to attend Ethics School in Washington, an approximately six-hour course.  Mr. Aylworth’s probation will terminate upon the completion of the Ethics School. 

This public reprimand does not limit Mr. Aylworth’s eligibility to practice law.