PROFESSIONAL GONDUCT BOARD

IDAHO STATE BAR

Julia A. Crossland
Assistant Bar Counsel
Idaho State Bar
P. 0. Box 895
Boise, ID 83701
(208) 334-4500
ISB No. 3989

FEB 14 2002
FILED-ORIGINAL

BEFORE THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD

OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR
IDAHO STATE BAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLINTON E. MINER,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. FC 00-10

STIPULATION

The p a r t i e s to the above-captioned formal charge proceeding hereby tender the following
Stipulation to the Professional Conduct Board and recommend that it be adopted as the
Professional Conduct Board's recommendation to the Idaho Supreme Court for full and final
resolution of the formal charge case herein.

Plaintiff Idaho State Bar (ISB) enters into this

Stipulation by and through its counsel, Julia A. Crossland.

The Defendant, Clinton E. Miner,

enters into this Stipulation personally and through his counsel, Fred J. Lewis.

I.

The parties stipulate to the filing of an Amended Complaint in this matter, which is

attached hereto as Exhibit A. The allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint concern ML
Miner's conduct in representing client Fred Quinto.

Stipulation- I

2.

Mr. Miner

admits

A m e n d e d Complaint.

the

factual

allegations set f o r t h i n C o u n t

One o f t h e

The parties agree that Mr. Miner's conduct constituted a violation of

Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 [Diligence], 1.4 [Communication], 1.16(d) [Failure
to take steps reasonably

practicable

to

protect

client's interests

upon

termination of

representation], 3.2 [Failure to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client],
and 8.4(d) [Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice] with respect to his representation
of Fred Quinto.

3.

The original C o m p l a i n t filed a g a i n s t Mr. Miner on September 15, 2000, c o n t a i n e d

an additional count, Count Two, which alleged t h a t Mr. Miner made a false statement to the ISB
in the investigation o f this disciplinary matter. Specifically, the ISB alleged that Mr. Miner
f alsely informed t h e ISB that his former e m p l o y e r had agreed to complete M r . Quinto's. case
(which involved filing a memorandum of attorney fees and costs), that his former employer died
shortly thereafter, and that the law firm acting as receiver for the deceased attorney's estate had
agreed to complete Mr. Quinto's case. The ISB further alleged that when it contacted the
receiver law firm, the ISB. was informed that Fred Quinto was not on the list of clients of
the deceased attorney to be contacted, and that Mr. Quinto's file had been forwarded to Mr.
Miner b y the deceased a t t o r n e y s law firm for him to complete. The ISB therefore a l l e g e d
t h a t Mr. Miner

Provided false information t o the ISB during its investigation into the matter.

4.

At the ISBs request, M r . Miner and his counsel met with Assistant Bar Counsel in

December 2000 to discuss the allegations in Count Two. Mr. Miner had previously maintained,

Stipulation - 2

and continued to maintain that he truly believed that the receiver law firm had agreed to file the
necessary papers to complete Mr. Quinto's case. At the conclusion of this meeting, the ISB's

Stipulation - 3

assessment of Mr. Miner's rendition of events was that he displayed total candor, and provided a
reasonable explanation as to how and why he believed the receiver law firm had committed to
complete Mr. Quinto's case. The ISB therefore concluded that Mr. Miner's statements to the ISB
regarding who was supposed to complete Mr. Quinto's case were not false, but that he was
mistaken in his belief that the receiver law firm had agreed to complete the case.

Having so

concluded, the ISB thus agreed to dismiss Count Two from the Complaint.

5.

' Since the filing of this formal charge case, Mr. Quinto has been made whole. In May

2001, he received a check from opposing counsel in the underlying civil suit in the amount of
$3,501.86,

representing the original $ 860.00 j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d to Mr. Quinto b y the

jury, attorney fees, costs and interest.

G.

Mr. Miner was admitted to the ISB in 1988._He has no prior discipline.

7.

The parties agree that the appropriate sanction in this matter is a PUBLIC CENSURE

pursuant to Idaho Bar Commission Rule 506(d).

8.

If the Professional Conduct Board accepts this Stipulation and recommends that it be

accepted by the Idaho Supreme Court, and it is, in fact, accepted by the Idaho Supreme Court,
pursuant to Idaho Bar Commission Rule 506(d), the PUBLIC CENSURE shall be published in
The Advocate, The Lewiston Morning Tribune, and the Idaho Reports. The parties suggest that
the PUBLIC CENSURE be in the fom1set forth in Exhibit B attache.d hereto.

Stipulation - 4

- ..

9.

Each party shall assume its own costs and attorney fees incurred in this matter.

10.

In the event that the Professional Conduct Board declines to accept this Stipulation, each

party shall have the right to withdraw from the Stipulation and to proceed to hearing on the
merits.

DATED this

/4Jl-- day of February, 2002.

q tA.

Cw

J 1 A. Crossland
Assistant Bar Counsel

DATED thisJ!f_day of February, 2002

Clinton E. Miner
Defenaant

.DATED thisftday of February, 2002

Stipulation - 5

J
.

Julia A. Crossland
Assistant Bar Counsel
Idaho State Bar
P. 0. Box 895
Boise, ID 83701
(208) 334-4500
ISB No. 3989
BEFORE THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD
OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR
IDAHO STATE BAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLINTON E. MINER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. FC 00-10

AMENDED
COMPLAINT

The Idaho State Bar (ISB), by and through its counsel, Julia A. Crossland, charges Clinton E.
Miner, an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of Idaho, with professional misconduct
as follows:

I.

Clinton E. Miner, hereinafter referred to as "Defendant" or "Defendant Miner," was admitted to the
practice of law in the State of Idaho in 1988, at which time he took the oath required for
admission, wherein he agreed to abide by and follow the Idaho Rules ofProfessional Conduct as
adopted and amended by the ISB and the Rules of the Idaho Supreme Court.

At all times .

mentioned herein he has continuously been under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Supreme Court as
a member of the ISB on ctive status.
EXHIBIT
Amended Complaint - 1

II.

The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho has approved. and adopted the Idaho Rules of

Professional Conduct, governing the ethical conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in the State
ofldaho, which Rules were in effect at all times relevant herein.

IlL

Pursuant to Rule 5ll(a)(l) of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules,the Board of Commissioners has
concurred in the filing of these charges against the Defendant.

COUNT ONE

(Neglect)

I.

In July 1997, Fred Quinto retained Defendant Miner, a sole practitioner, to represent him in
-
_;

collecting on a debt in the amount of $860.00. Mr. Quinto initially paid the Defendant $550.00
and the complaint was filed on August 22, 1997.

Amended Complaint- 2

II.

Shortly after taking Mr. Quinto's case, Defendant Miner became employed by the Shuster Law
Firm in Greenacres, Washington.

III.

Approximately one week before the trial in this matter, Defendant Miner asked Mr. Quinto for an
additional S2,000.00, which Mr. Quinto paid. A jury trial was held on August 31, 1998, after
which the jury found in favor of Mr. Quinto and awarded him $860.00.

At the conclusion of the

trial, Defendant Miner assured Mr. Quinto that the judgment and memorandum of costs would be
filed by the end of that week- September 4, 1998. The Defendant also informed Mr. Quinto that
he was soon leaving the Sh ster Law Firm .to begin working for the Idaho Attorney General's
.office in Boise.

IV.

Mr. Quinto spoke with the Defendant the next week and learned t])at the documents had not yet
been filed. Again the Defendant assured Mr. Quinto that they would be filed by the end of that
week, September 11, 1998.

Amended Complaint- 3

v.

Mr. Quinto spoke with the Defendant agam on September 15, 1998, and learned that the
documents remained untiled.

The Defendant told Mr. Quinto that he had not filed the judgment

and memorandum of costs, and had no incentive to do so unless he was paid for 67 hours at
$100.00. By October 9, 1998, the documents had still not been filed.

VI.

On October 15, 1998, Mr: Quinto filed a complaint with the ISB. On November 10, 1998, the
ISB asked the Defendant to contact Mr. Quinto to provide information and assistance within ten
(10) days of his receipt of the letter. By November 27, 1998, Mr. Quinto had not heard from the
Defendant.

VII.

On January 21, 1999, Defendant Miner informed the ISB that he had an agreement with Leroy
Shuster that the Shuster Law Firm would complete Mr. Quinto's case, but that Mr. Shuster had
died on December 3, 1998.

He also told the ISB that he had spoken to the receiver at the law

firm ofLukins and Annis, and that this firm. would complete the case.

Amended Complaint- 4

VIII.

On February 4, 1999, Mr. Quinto notified the ISB that he had still not heard from the Defendant,
and that on February 28, 1999, the case would be dismissed for inactivity.

IX.

In April 1999, Defendant Miner informed the ISB that because the receiver of Mr. Shuster's

estate had not filed the judgment and memorandum of costs, Defendant Miner had prepared them
and would be filing them along with his motion to withdraw as attorney ofrecord.

X.

On August 6, 1999, Mr. Quinto notified the ISB that the Defendant had neither filed the
judgment and memorandum of costs, nor the motion to withdraw as attorney ofrecord.

XI.

In November 1999, the clerk's office of the district court in Nez Perce County informed the ISB
that there had been no activity in Mr. Quinto's case since the trial in August l998.

Amended Complaint- 5

XII.

The Defendant moved to withdraw as attorney of record on April 3, 2000. The motion was
denied. The court ruled that it would not allow the Defendant to withdraw until the judgment
and memorandum of costs had been filed.

XIII.

A Memorandum of Costs, Disbursements and Attorney Fees was not filed until October 6, 2000.
A proposed Judgment was not filed until approximately October 18,2000.

XIV.

A telephonic hearing was held on November 30, 2000, regarding the Defendant's proposed
judgment and memorandum of costs and attorney fees.

XV.

In December 2000, the parties to the Fred Quinto litigation reached a settlement agreement with

respect to the amount due and owing to Mr. Quinto.

Amended Complaint- 6

XVI.

Mr. Quinto finally received payment on the August 31, 1998 jury verdict in late May 2001.

XVII.

The conduct described in paragraphs I. through XVI. of this count constitutes a violation of
Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 ["Diligence"]; 1.4 ["Communication"]; 1.16(d) [Failure
to take steps reasonably

practicable

to protect

client's

interests upon

termination

of

representation]; 3.2 [Failure to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client]; and
8.4(d) [Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice].

WHEREFORE, based on the matters alleged in Count One, Plaintiff prays for judgment against
Defendant, Clinton E. Miner, as follows:

That Defendant receive a PUBLIC CENSURE.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2002.

Julia A Crossland
Assistant Bar Counsel

Amended Complaint -1

CLINTON E. MINER
(Public Censure)
The Idaho Supreme Court has issued a Public Censure to former Lewiston
lawyer Clinton E. Miner, based on professional misconduct.
The Supreme Court's Order followed a Professional Conduct Board
recommendation and a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar (ISB)
disciplinary proceeding in which Miner was found to have committed disciplinary
violations involving Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 ["Diligence"], 1.4
["Communication"], 1.16(d) [Failure to take steps reasonably practicable to
protect client's interests upon termination of representation]; 3.2 [Failure to
expedite litigation consist nt with the interests of the client]; and 8.4(d) [Conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice].
The complaint involved M r . Miners representation of a client, F.Q. In
July 1997, F.Q. retained Miner, then a sole practitioner, to represent him in
collecting on a debt in the amount of $860.00. Shortly after taking F.Q.s case,
Miner became employed by a small law firm in Greenacres, Washington. A jury
trial was held on August 31, 1998, after which the jury found in favor of F.Q.
and awarded him $860.00. At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Miner assured F.Q.
that the judgment and memorandum o f costs would be filed by the end of that
week, September 4, 1998. At this time, Mr. Miner informed F.Q. that he would
soon be leaving the law firm to take a job in Boise.
On October 15, 1998, F.Q. filed a complaint with the ISB as the judgment
and memorandum of costs had not yet been filed. Miner was asked by the ISB to
respond to F.Q. within ten days. By November 27, 1998, F.Q. had not heard from
Mr. Miner. In late January 1999, Miner informed the. ISB that his prior employer
had agreed to complete F.Q.'s case when Miner moved to Boise, but that-his
former employer had died in December 1998. Mr. Miner further informed the
ISB that the receiver appointed to handle his former employer's cases had agreed
to complete F.Q.'s case. The receiver law firm, with the assistance of the
paralegals who had worked for his prevlous employer,'began work on the
memorandum of costs, but ultimately declined to complete this particular case.

By April 1999, the judgment and memorandum of costs had still not been
filed. At this time, Miner informed the ISB that he had prepared the papers and
would be filing them along with a motion to withdraw. In November 1999, the
ISB learned that nothing had been filed regarding F.Q.'s case since.the trial in
August 1998. The following year, on April 3, 2000, Miner moved to withdraw as
attorney of record in F.Q.'s case. The district court denied the motion, however,
ruling that Miner would not be allowed to withdraw until the judgment and
memorandum of costs had been filed. The memorandum of costs was not filed
EXHIBIT

1 5

until October 6, 2000, and the judgment was not filed until approximately October
18, 2000.
The allegations of neglect, failure to expedite litigation consistent with the
interests of the client, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice stem
from the fact that it took Miner over two years to file a judgment and
memorandum of costs on an $860.00 jury verdict. The allegation of lack of
communication stems from the fact that Miner did not keep his client, F.Q.,
adequately informed as to the status of the resolution of F.Q.s case, and did not
contact F.Q. when requested to do so by the ISB. The allegation that Miner failed
to t a k e steps r e a s o n a b l y p r a c t i c a b l e t o p r o t e c t his c l i e n t s
interests u p o n termination of representation is based on the fact the one year
after informing the ISB that he intended to file the judgment and cost papers and
a motion to withdraw, Miner attempted to withdraw from the case without filing
the necessary papers to complete F.Q.'s case.
The Public Censure does not limit Mr. Miner's eligibility to practice law.
Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State
Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, ID 83701, (208) 334-4500.

. -