DUI Enroute To Hearing And Concrete Misrepresentations Draw Idaho Sanctions
A withheld nine-month suspension was imposed by the Idaho Supreme Court
In March 2017, Mr. Lyksett was cited for misdemeanor driving under the influence (“DUI”) after he was involved in a collision while driving to a client’s Social Security hearing in Spokane, Washington. In June 2017, the Whitman County District Court entered an Order Deferring Prosecution, placing Mr. Lyksett on probation for not less than five years and providing that the DUI charge would be dismissed three years after his successful completion of a two-year treatment program.
The Disciplinary Order provides that Mr. Lyksett’s nine (9) month suspension is withheld subject to the terms and conditions of his disciplinary probation through June 23, 2022. Those terms and conditions include a program of random urinalysis and avoidance of any alcohol or drug-related criminal acts or traffic violations. If Mr. Lyksett tests positive for alcohol or other tested substances, misses a random urinalysis test without prior approval, admits or is found to have violated any of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct for which a public sanction is imposed for conduct during his probation, or violates any other term or condition of his probation, the entire withheld suspension shall be imposed.
The Idaho State Bar Professional Conduct Board imposed a public reprimand in an unrelated matter
The Professional Conduct Board’s Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Godfrey admitted that his conduct violated Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 [Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services].
This disciplinary case related to Mr. Godfrey’s communications with Boise homeowners about their concrete foundations and his request to test those foundations. Mr. Godfrey visited multiple homeowners at their houses and misinformed them that he represented another homeowner in their neighborhood whose foundation was purportedly defective. Although some of the homeowners granted Mr. Godfrey’s request to test their foundations, no homeowners retained Mr. Godfrey and no litigation resulted from any alleged defects in the homeowners’ foundations.
(Mike Frisch)