IDAHO STATE BAR v. STACEY (2026)

Disciplinary Order

A CERTIFICATE OF RECORD with attachments of proceedings before the Professional Conduct Board of the Idaho State Bar which included a STIPULATION entered by counsel for Petitioner, counsel for Respondent, and Respondent Richard L. Stacey, Jr., was filed on March 30, 2026.

After review, the Court finds that Respondent Richard L. Stacey, Jr., has violated the rules of professional conduct set forth below and the recommended sanction is appropriate. The Court finds that in the course of his practice of law Respondent Richard L. Stacey, Jr., violated I.R.P.C. 3.1, bringing a proceeding or asserting or controverting an issue therein without a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous with respect to Count One of the Complaint. With respect to Count Two of the Complaint, Respondent Richard L. Stacey, Jr., violated I.R.P.C. 8.4(d), by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. With respect to Count Three of the Complaint, Respondent Richard L. Stacey, Jr., violated I.R.P.C. 3.4(c) by knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal. Therefore, after due consideration,

IT IS ORDERED that the sanction of PUBLIC CENSURE pursuant to I.B.C.R. 506(d) is imposed upon Respondent Richard L. Stacey, Jr.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the public notice of the sanction shall be published in the form set forth as Exhibit A, attached hereto. Consistent with I.B.C.R. 506, the censure will be published in the Advocate, on the ISB website, in a newspaper of general circulation in the judicial district in which Respondent practices law, and in the Idaho Reports.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will assume their own costs and fees incurred in this matter.

RICHARD L. STACEY, JR.

(Public Censure)

On _, the Idaho Supreme Court entered a Disciplinary Order publicly censuring Boise attorney Richard L. Stacey, Jr. The Order followed a stipulated resolution of an Idaho State Bar disciplinary proceeding in which Mr. Stacey admitted that he violated the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.

The formal charge case related to Mr. Stacey's failure to accurately state the factual and procedural history of a case while on appeal. Specifically, in Mr. Stacey's opening brief on appeal, he included facts and arguments without attributing those facts or arguments as having been raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Stacey never referenced, argued, or otherwise mentioned the motion for reconsideration or the district court's decision declining to consider the new facts and arguments in his opening brief on appeal. Prior to oral argument, the opposing party moved the Court to sanction Mr. Stacey for non-disclosure of material facts in his opening brief. The Idaho Supreme Court imposed sanctions against Mr. Stacey for his violation of Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2.

The Idaho Supreme Court found that Mr. Stacey violated IRPC 3.1 [Bringing a proceeding or asserting or controverting an issue therein without a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous], IRPC 8.4(d) [Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice] and IRPC 3.4(c) [Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal].

Inquiries about this matter may be directed to: Bar Counsel, Idaho State Bar, P.O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701. (208) 334-4500.

G. Richard Bevan, Chief Justice