The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a finding that declared a former attorney to be a “vexatious litigant”

The [Administrative District Judge’s] vexatious litigation determination arose in connection with Smith’s conduct in litigation concerning the administration of Victoria H. Smith’s estate. Smith is one of Victoria’s children and was previously an Idaho-licensed attorney. In 1990, Victoria prepared a holographic will that left her entire estate to Smith and disinherited her other two children. Idaho State Bar v. Smith, 170 Idaho 534, 539, 513 P.3d 1154, 1159 (2022). Smith was the only person present when Victoria executed the will. Id. Following Victoria’s death, Smith’s brother successfully challenged Victoria’s holographic will as being procured through Smith’s undue influence and obtained a court order determining that Victoria died intestate. Id. at 541, 544, 513 P.3d at 1161, 1164. The court appointed a personal representative (“PR”) for the estate and the estate has been administered as an intestate supervised administration. The handling of Victoria’s estate has been highly contentious, resulting in multiple appeals to this Court. See, e.g., In re Est. of Smith, 164 Idaho 457, 432 P.3d 6 (2018); Smith ex rel. Smith v. Treasure Valley Seed Co., 161 Idaho 107, 383 P.3d 1277 (2016); Smith ex rel. Smith v. Treasure Valley Seed Co., 164 Idaho 654, 434 P.3d 1260 (2019).

Subsequently, the Idaho State Bar filed a complaint against Smith, alleging that he violated the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with actions he took related to Victoria’s estate. See Idaho State Bar, 170 Idaho 534, 555 P.3d 1154. The disciplinary proceeding ultimately made it to this Court. See id. We affirmed the Idaho State Bar Professional Conduct Committee’s determination, suspended Smith from the practice of law for five years, and imposed conditions that he must meet before seeking reinstatement. Id. at 554–56, 513 P.3d at 1174–76. Smith thereafter made numerous pro se filings in the probate proceeding.

The PR of Victoria’s estate moved, pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59(d)(3), to have Smith declared a vexatious litigant due to his submission of repeated frivolous filings.

Affirmed

the prefiling order does not prevent Smith from accessing the courts of Idaho for valid purposes. The prefiling order prohibits Smith “from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state pro se without first obtaining leave of a judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.” (Emphasis added.) Rule 59(i) sets forth the standard a judge must apply when considering a potential filing: “[a] presiding judge shall permit the filing of new litigation by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order only if it appears that the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purpose of harassment or delay.” I.C.A.R. 59(i). Put simply, nothing in the prefiling order prevents Smith from filing meritorious litigation for a proper purpose.

The court declined to award attorneys’ fees for the appeal.

The ADJ seeks attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121, which provides for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any civil action where the case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. I.C. § 12-121. Here, although we ultimately hold that Smith’s appeal is unsuccessful, we do not hold that the appeal was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Considering the nature of the interest at stake, we are not persuaded that Smith’s appeal was improperly brought or pursued. See I.C.A.R. 59(4)(f). We therefore decline to award the ADJ attorney fees on appeal.

(Mike Frisch)