Office of Bar Counsel

91SBd
O (
525 West Jefferson • P. O. Box 895 • Boise, Idaho 83701
208) 334- 4500 • Fax: ( 208) 334- 2764
IDAHO STATE BAR www. isb. idaho. gov

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

CERTIFIED NOs: 7017 3040 0000 4946 2119; 7017 3040 0000 4946 2126

December 12, 2019

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

T. Jason Wood

Wood Law Group, PC

1488 Midway Ave.
Idaho Falls, ID 83406

Scott Hanson

P. O. Box 1686

Sun Valley, ID 83353

Re: Grievance by Scott Hanson against T. Jason Wood

ISB File No. 19- 180

Dear Mr. Wood and Mr. Hanson:

The Office of Bar Counsel has concluded its investigation into the grievance filed by Scott
Ilanson against T. Jason Wood and issues this decision.

The essential facts follow. On August 14, 2014 and August 21, 2014, Scott Hanson
underwent surgeries to remove cataracts in his eyes. William Fitzhugh, M. D., performed those
surgeries and instructed Mr. Hanson to take prescription eyedrops after the surgeries.

On September 19, 2014, Mr. Hanson was arrested on a parole violation for an underlying
felony DUI conviction. At the time of his arrest, he informed parole officer Kevin Wayt (" Wayt")
that lie recently had eye surgery and needed to take prescription eyedrops with him to jail. Wayt did
not permit Mr. Hanson to bring the eyedrops to jail. Thereafter, Mr. Hanson informed Blaine County
Tail employees and, upon transfer to Gooding County, informed Gooding County Jail employees that
he needed to take his prescription eyedrops. The jail employees took no action to ensure that Mr.
Hanson received his eyedrops. When Mr. Hanson was transferred back to the Blaine County Jail, he
again requested treatment because his vision was deteriorating. He ultimately received the eyedrops
on September 25, 2014, six days after his incarceration. By September 29, 2014, when he met with
an optometrist as arranged by the Blaine County Jail, he was losing sight in his right eye. Ile would
subsequently undergo more eye surgeries and experience significantly decreased vision in his right
eye.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson

Page 2
12/ 12/ 19

On October 1, 2014, Dr. Fitzhugh diagnosed Mr. Hanson with a detached retina and
determined that the delay in examining Mr. Hanson' s eye at the jail and the denial of prescription
eyedrops caused the decline in Mr. Hanson' s eyesight.

On October 31, 2014, Mr. Hanson filed Notices of Tort Claim with Gooding County and
Blaine County. His claims were denied.

In or around May 2016, Dr. Fitzhugh retired from his ophthalmology practice. Kyle Klingler,
M. D., took over that practice.

On or around September 7, 2016, approximately two weeks before the statute of limitations
ran on his claims, Mr. Hanson retained Mr. Wood to pursue a federal lawsuit regarding the lack of
eye treatment he received while incarcerated in 2014.

On September 16, 2016, Mr. Wood filed Mr. Hanson' s civil Complaint in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Idaho (" Court") against Blaine County, Blaine County Sheriff Gene
Ramsey, Gooding County, Gooding County Sheriff Shaun Gough, Gooding County Corporal
William Shubert, Gooding County police officer Jesus Gonzalez, contract nurse Judith Peterson
Nurse Peterson"), and parole officer Wayt. I

On January 23, 2017, Blaine County and Sheriff Ramsey ( hereinafter referred to collectively
as ` Blaine County Defendants") and Gooding County, Sheriff Gough, Corporal Shubert, and Officer
Gonzalez ( hereinafter referred to collectively as " Gooding County Defendants") filed a Motion to
Dismiss on multiple grounds including, for purposes of the state law claims against the law
enforcement officers, Mr. Hanson' s failure to post a bond before filing his Complaint.

On February 16, 2017, Mr. Wood filed Mr. Hanson' s Declaration of Indigence and a
Response to the Motion to Dismiss. In that Response, he disputed the Defendants' assertion that Mr.
Hanson' s state law claims against law enforcement must be dismissed based on his failure to post a
bond before filing the Complaint pursuant to Idaho Code § 6- 610. He stated that the Court had
recently " permitted delayed bond postings" in other cases and noted that under Idaho Code § 31-
3220, a party could file an affidavit claiming indigeney after litigation commenced to obtain a
waiver. He asked the Court to waive the bond requirement or set a maximum $ 500 bond.

On February 28, 2017, parole officer Wayt filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting: ( 1) he was
immune from liability under the 11t' Amendment if Mr. Hanson was suing him in his official
capacity; ( 2) if he was being sued in his individual capacity, he was entitled to qualified immunity
because the alleged constitutional violation did not involve a clearly established right and his
response under the circumstances was not objectively unreasonable; and ( 3) with respect to the state
law claims, he was immune from liability under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (" ITCA").

The Idaho Department of Correction was initially named as a defendant in the Complaint, but was removed in an
Amended Complaint
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 3
12/ 12/ 19

On March 23, 2017, Judge Wininill entered a Case Management Order setting the following
deadlines: ( 1) Mr. Hanson' s expert witnesses must be disclosed by November 22, 2017; ( 2) rebuttal
experts must be identified by January 5, 2018; ( 3) factual discovery must be completed by January
22, 2018; and ( 4) discovery relevant to the parties' experts must be completed by January 22, 2018,

On April 10, 2017, Corporal Shubert and Officer Gonzalez served discovery requests asking
Mr. Hanson to identify all persons known to have knowledge or information about the case and to
produce all medical records relating to Mr. Hanson' s eye treatment before, during, and after his 2014
incarceration.

On June 6, 2017, Mr. Wood served Mr. Hanson' s initial disclosures identifying Drs. Fitzhugh
and Klingler as individuals having personal knowledge of the facts in the case.

On June 7, 2017, Mr. Wood seriously injured his knee. He underwent knee surgery on June
13, 2017. For a period of time during his recovery, he was unable to work on Mr. Hanson' s case
while taking prescription pain medications.

On June 20, 2017, Mr. Wood' s office received a letter from Dr. Fitzhugh' s former office
responding to requests for Mr. Hanson' s medical records. That letter did not enclose the requested
medical records.

On or around June 30, 2017, when Mr. Wood returned to his office after knee surgery, he
reviewed the June 20, 2017 letter from Dr. Fitzhugh' s former office and instructed his staff to again
contact that office to obtain the requested medical records. According to Mr. Wood, despite repeated
efforts, neither he nor his staff were able to reach anyone at Dr. Fitzhugh' s former office who could
provide the requested records for over two months, until September 2, 2017.

On August 28, 2017, Judge Winmill entered a Memorandum Decision and Order on the
Motions to Dismiss. Regarding the bond requirement, the Court stated that Idaho Code § 6- 610

requires a plaintiff to post a bond before or simultaneously with filing a civil action against a law
enforcement officer. The Court stated that Idaho Code § 6- 610( 5) provides that " the judge shall
dismiss the case" if the plaintiff fails to post a bond and the defendant objects. ' rhe Court
acknowledged that courts may waive the bond for an indigent plaintiff under Idaho Code § 31- 3220
if the plaintiff files an affidavit confirming indigency. However, the Court rejected Mr. Wood' s
argument that courts are lenient regarding the timeline for posting the bond and that the Court was
not required to dismiss Mr. Hanson' s claims against the law enforcement officers based on the
failure to timely post a bond. The Court cited Idaho caselaw providing that Idaho Code § 6- 610( 2)
requires plaintiffs to post a bond before initiating a lawsuit against a law enforcement officer and
added that Idaho caselaw also indicated plaintiffs must file a bond waiver request before filing a civil
complaint. The Court noted that Mr. Hanson failed to post the required bond when he filed the
Complaint and failed to submit his Declaration of Indigence until over four months after the
Complaint was filed and " only after the defense raised the issue that he had not posted a bond."
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 4
12/ 12/ 19

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Mr. Hanson' s state law claims against Sheriff' Ramsey, Sheriff
Gough, Corporal Shubert, and Officer Gonzalez " without leave to amend because Mr. Hanson
cannot unwind the clock to cure his failure to timely post a bond."

In his August 28, 2017 Memorandum Decision and Order, Judge Winmill determined that
Mr. Hanson had sued Wayt in Wayt' s individual capacity and concluded that it would not have been
sufficiently clear" to Wayt that his conduct in arresting and transporting Mr. Hanson to jail violated
a clearly established 14"' Amendment right. The Court stated that no caselaw created " a clearly
established right to receive medical treatment from an arresting officer for a medical condition that is
not presenting an immediate threat of harm or pain to the arrestee." Therefore, the Court found that
Wayt was entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also found that Wayt was not subject to liability
under the " state created danger" doctrine because there was no allegation that Wayt was " aware of
immediate and known danger to Mr. Hanson if he refused to take prescription eye drops to jail."
Regarding the ITCA, the Court stated that Mr. Hanson failed to allege any facts supporting a finding
that Wayt acted with the necessary malice or criminal intent. The Court granted Wayt' s Motion to
Dismiss with leave for Mr. Hanson to file an Amended Complaint within 20 days.

On or around September 2, 2017, Mr. Wood' s office received Mr. Hanson' s medical records
from Dr. Fitzhugh' s former office.

On September 6, 2017, Mr. Wood' s paralegal, Andrea Laufer (" Laufer"), sent an email to

Mr. Hanson stating that she had spoken with Dr. Klingler that day and it did not appear he would
help" with Mr. Hanson' s case. She stated that if requested, Mr. Wood could file a motion to dismiss
the case or a motion to withdraw as counsel. She stated that Mr. Wood would contact Mr. Hanson
directly to " further discuss [ his] options" in the case.

On or around September 7, 2017, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson requesting a call to
discuss the case. He stated:

As I indicated several days ago, even if Dr. Fitzhugh would testify for you, it is very
problematic that your current treating physician cannot testify that the jail' s refusal to
give you prompt treatment would have changed the outcome regarding your eye.
Based on this alone, I have concluded that I can no longer assist you in this case. As
we discussed early on in your case, this is a threshold issue. After making that
determination, yesterday I reviewed the Court' s decision the judge received [ sic]
while 1 was on vacation dismissing your case and allowing you an opportunity to
amend. I strongly disagree with most of the Judge' s opinion, and there are measures
we can take to obtain reconsideration or appeal, However, if you wish to proceed with
those measures, I will be unable to assist you with them.

On September 12, 2017, Mr. Wood served Mr. Hanson' s discovery responses identifying
James Earl, M. D., as an additional medical provider.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 5
12/ 12/ 19

On September 14, 2017, Mr. Wood filed Mr. Hanson' s Amended Complaint providing
additional details about the Defendants' failures to provide Mr. Hanson with medical care.

Also on September 14, 2017, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson attaching a copy of the
Amended Complaint and the Court' s August 28, 2017 Memorandum Decision and Order regarding
the Motions to Dismiss filed by all Defendants except Nurse Peterson. He asked Mr. Hanson to
contact Drs. Fitzhugh and Klingler to discuss whether the Defendants' delay in treatment caused Mr.
Hanson' s vision loss and additional eye surgeries.

On or around September 27, 2017, Mr. Wood spoke with Dr. Fitzhugh by phone about Mr.
Hanson' s case. His notes of that conversation reflected the following; ( 1) the prescription eyedrops
could have prevented Mr. Hanson' s eye problems; ( 2) issues in the case included the fact that Dr.
Fitzhugh was retired and did not have an active medical license; ( 3) Mr. Hanson was not legally
blind and his reduced vision represented a relatively small percentage of disability; and ( 4) Dr.
Fitzhugh needed to review his former office' s records as well as any records of Mr. Hanson' s
subsequent medical care.

On September 28, 2017, Wayt filed a Second Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Wood did not file a
response to that motion.

On October 9, 2017, Mr. Wood underwent foot surgery. According to Mr. Wood, he was
unable to work on Mr. Hanson' s case for a period of time after that surgery due to complications and
his use of prescription narcotic pain medications for two weeks that significantly limited his ability
to work. The record indicates that Mr. Hanson was aware of Mr. Wood' s surgery and recovery
issues.

On October 13, 2017, in response to Mr. Hanson' s request for a status update, paralegal
Laufer advised that Dr. Fitzhugh had contacted Mr. Wood and they " had a good conversation." She
added that she had forwarded the relevant medical records to Dr. Fitzhugh.

On October 27, 2017, Judge Winmill entered a Memorandum and Decision granting Wayt' s
Second Motion to Dismiss. The Court stated that the allegations in the Amended Complaint did not
support a finding that Wayt placed Mr. Hanson " in danger he otherwise would not have faced" by
being transported to jail without prescription eyedrops. The Court noted that Wayt transported Mr.
Hanson to a jail facility with medical care, had told Mr. Hanson that he could get medical care at the
jail, and did not know Mr. Hanson " was in danger when he placed him in the custody of a jail with
medical care."

Also on October 27, 2017, Mr. Wood underwent hand surgery. According to Mr. Wood, his
recovery from that surgery was complicated by an infection that rendered him unable to work full-
time for approximately two weeks.
T. Jason Wood

Scott Hanson
Page 6
12/ 12/ 19

On November 3, 2017, Dr. Fitzhugh sent an email to Mr. Wood stating that he had reviewed
Mr. Hanson' s recent medical records. He noted that Mr. Hanson continued to experience
complications and stated that Mr. Hanson' s vision in the right eye was " now at least periodically at
the level of legal blindness" and would " most likely continue to deteriorate."

On November 21, 2017, one day before the expert witness deadline, Mr. Wood spoke with
Dr. Fitzhugh by phone. Also on November 21, 2017, he sent an email to Dr. Fitzhugh requesting a
brief summary of the progression of [Mr. Hanson' s] eye problems and treatments to date, including
diagnoses, likely need for future treatments and the costs" of such treatment. By separate email that
day, he asked Dr. Fitzhugh to provide the following: ( 1) curriculum vitae; ( 2) list of publications
authored by Dr. Fitzhugh in the last 10 years; ( 3) list of cases in which Dr. Fitzhugh had testified in
the last four years; and ( 4) statement of the fees Dr. Fitzhugh intended to charge.

In his November 21, 2017 email to Dr. Fitzhugh, Mr. Wood explained that his priority was to
prepare a report of Dr. Fitzhugh' s opinions. He stated a " good place to start" would be the opinions
Dr. Fitzhugh expressed during their phone call that day, including Dr. Fitzhugh' s opinion that it was
more probably true than not true ( from a medical standpoint)" that the delay in providing the
prescription eyedrops and follow- up treatment " caused the need" for Mr. Hanson' s subsequent
surgeries and the current impairment of Mr. Hanson' s right eye. He asked Dr. Fitzhugh to advise if
additional information was needed to prepare the report and indicated he would file Dr. Fitzhugh' s
report the next day.

On November 22, 2017, Dr. Fitzhugh sent an email to Mr. Wood attaching a written
statement.

Also on November 22, 2017, the deadline for Mr. Hanson' s expert witness disclosure, Mr.
Wood served on the Defendants a document entitled Plaintiff' s Preliminary Expert Witness
Disclosure (" Preliminary Disclosure") identifying Dr. Fitzhugh as an expert witness and providing
Dr. Fitzhugh' s written statement. The Preliminary Disclosure did not include Dr. Fitzhugh' s
curriculum vitae, list of publications, list of cases in which he had testified, or a compensation
statement as required under F. R. C. P 26( a). In his written statement, Dr. Fitzhugh provided a
preliminary opinion and This is an odrniuedZv brief report due [ to] the extenuating
stated: "
circumstances for the unanticipated deadline. I will be providing more detail in future reports."
Emphasis added.) Regarding Mr. Hanson' s case, Dr. Fitzhugh stated that it was his opinion that the
inexplicable withholding" of the prescription eyedrops and " failure to provide access to ophthalmic
care" were the " most probable" causes of Mr. Hanson' s " poor" and " deteriorating" vision. IIe
opined that Mr. Hanson was " likely to suffer further difficulties with his right eye with costs nearly
impossible to anticipate but perhaps totaling up to $ 40 to $ 10, 000."

Also on November 22, 2017, Mr. Wood filed a Motion for Extension requesting a 30 -day
extension to disclose Mr. Hanson' s expert witnesses. In a supporting Declaration, he stated that: ( 1)
his knee issues had prevented him from working for a period of time in June 2017; ( 2) his office had
experienced difficulties obtaining Mr. Hanson' s medical records from Dr. Fitzhugh' s former office
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 7
12/ 12/ 19

until September 2, 2017; ( 3) he had a discussion with Dr. Fitzhugh in late September 2017; and ( 4)
his foot and hand surgeries had prevented him from working for a period of time in October 2017.
He stated that when he returned to work after recovering from his medical issues and again
connected with Dr. Fitzhugh, the November 22, 2017 expert witness disclosure deadline was
approaching. He stated that he obtained Dr. Fitzhugh' s preliminary opinion, which would " need to
be supplemented," and stated that because he had only recently obtained Dr. Fitzhugh' s records, it
was possible that " other experts may be needed" for Mr. Hanson' s case.

On November 30, 2017, the Blaine County Defendants and Gooding County Defendants
filed a Motion to Strike Expert Testimony, requesting that Dr. Fitzhugh' s Preliminary Disclosure be
excluded and that Dr. Fitzhugh be prohibited from testifying as an expert witness at trial. The
Defendants asserted that with respect to the November 22, 2017 Preliminary Disclosure, Mr. Hanson
failed to properly disclose Dr. Fitzhugh under F. R.C.P 26( a) and Dr. Fitzhugh' s written statement
went beyond the scope of his treatment and thus was not exempt from the written report
requirements under F. R. C. P. 26( a). Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Dr. Fitzhugh' s
testimony should be limited to matters within the scope of his treatment of Mr. Hanson.

On December 18, 2017, Mr. Wood filed a Motion to Modify Case Management Order
Modify Motion") requesting a 60 -day extension for expert witness disclosures, discovery, and
dispositive motions. In a supporting Declaration, he discussed his previous medical issues and stated
that he had a total knee replacement scheduled for December 29, 2017. Nesse Peterson' s counsel,
Don Carey (" Carey"), stipulated to the requested extension.

On December 21, 2017, the Gooding County Defendants and Blaine County Defendants filed
an opposition to the Modify Motion.

On December 22, 2017, Mr. Wood filed a Supplemental Declaration in support of the
Modify Motion. He again described his medical issues in the previous six months, explained that he
had been unable to work on Mr. Hanson' s case during parts of his medical recovery, and stated that
his caseload grew when he was out of the office. He stated that when he returned to work, he was
unable to devote the necessary time to any single case. He stated that when he discovered how
behind" lie was in Mr. Hanson' s case, he filed the request to extend the expert disclosure deadline.
He stated that during the December 20, 2017 depositions of certain Gooding County Defendants, he
learned there were other ` potentially critical witnesses with knowledge" of Mr. Hanson' s medical
concerns. He asserted that the Defendants failed to previously disclose those witnesses and various
relevant documents.

Also on December 22, 2017, the Court held a hearing, granted the Modify Motion, and
directed Mr. Hanson to disclose all expert reports by January 22, 2018. Rebuttal expert disclosures
were due by March 8, 2018. The Court denied the Defendants' November 30, 2017 Motion to Strike
Expert Testimony, but ordered Mr. Hanson to pay the Defendants' fees associated with that motion.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson

Page 8

12/ 12/ 19

On January 5, 2018, the Blaine County Defendants and Gooding County Defendants filed a
Memorandum of Attorney Fees regarding their Motion to Strike Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony. Mr.
Wood did not file any response.

On January 16, 2018, Dr. Fitzhugh sent an email to Mr. Wood attaching a curriculum vitae
and supplemental report. Mr. Wood responded with proposed changes. The record indicates that Dr.
Fitzhugh returned a revised supplemental report to Mr. Wood later that day.

On January 22, 2018, the deadline for expert reports, Mr. Wood served on Defendants a
Second Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosure that included Dr. Fitzhugh' s January 16, 2018
supplemental report.

On February 21, 2018, in response to Mr. Hanson' s request for an update, Mr. Wood
explained in an email that he would need to conduct more depositions. He stated that based on the
evidence so far, he was " somewhat skeptical" that Mr. Hanson' s claims would " survive summary
judgment" even if additional depositions were conducted. He indicated that he would advise Mr.
Hanson how to proceed after further considering the matter.

On March 8, 2018, the deadline expired for Mr. Hanson to disclose rebuttal experts. Mr.
Wood did not disclose any rebuttal experts by the March 8, 2018 deadline.

On April 26, 2018, the Gooding County Defendants and Blaine County Defendants tiled
Motions for Summary Judgment. Nurse Peterson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 27,
2018.

On May 18, 2018, Mr. Wood filed a Combined Response to Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment and a Supplemental Declaration of William C. Fitzhugh, M.D. (" Supplemental
Declaration"). In his Supplemental Declaration, Dr. Fitzhugh maintained that the six- day delay in
providing medical treatment caused Mr. Hanson' s eye problems and he challenged certain factual
and opinion statements of defense expert Todd Leflcowitz, M. D. Specifically, Dr. Fitzhugh asserted
that Dr. Leflcowitz " concoet[ ed] an alternative explanation as to the causation of Mr. Hanson' s
ultimate poor outcome instead of the obvious and well documented lack of proper treatment and
neglect afforded" by the County jails.

On June 7, 2018, Mr. Hanson was treated by ophthalmologists Michael Teske, M.D. and
Alan Crandall, M.D. of Moran Eye Center.

On June 18, 2018, Mr. Hanson sent an email to Mr. Wood with a copy of the clinical notes
from his June 7, 2018 treatment at Moran Eye Center. He explained in his email that Drs. Teske and
Crandall determined that the pressure in his right eye was " dangerously high" and were treating that
condition with eyedrops. As discussed below, Mr. Wood stated that he did not see or open Mr.
Hanson' s email until sometime in early 2019. Mr. Wood did not disclose the June 7, 2018 Moran
Eye Center records to the Defendants until February 28, 2019.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 9

12/ 12/ 19

On June 25, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment.

On June 28, 2018, Mr. Hanson was treated by ophthalmologists at Southern Idaho
Ophthalmology. As discussed below, Mr. Wood did not obtain Mr. Hanson' s medical records from
Southern Idaho Ophthalmology until February 27, 2019. He disclosed those records to the
Defendants on February 28, 2019.

On July 9, 2018, Judge Winmill entered a Memorandum Decision and Order (" SJ Order")
granting in part, and denying in part, the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court
concluded that: ( I) there were disputed issues of material fact regarding whether Officer Gonzalez
and Corporal Schubert were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Hanson' s need for medical care and
prescription eyedrops; and ( 2) there were disputed issues of material fact regarding whether Nurse
Peterson was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Hanson' s medical need for emergency care, but there
were not any disputed issues of material fact regarding whether she was deliberately indifferent in
failing to ensure that Mr. Hanson received his prescription eyedrops.

On July 11, 2018, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson attaching a copy of the SJ Order.
He described the Court' s decision as a " mixed bag" because the Court denied summary judgment as
to Defendants Gonzalez, Shubert, and Nurse Peterson, but granted summary judgment and dismissed
from the case Gooding County, Gooding County Sheriff Gough, Blaine County, and Blaine County
Sheriff Ramsey. He advised that it was " a lot easier to get a jury to hit a governmental entity with a
damages award than an individual." He informed Mr. Hanson that the Court would set the case for
trial and the parties would mediate in the meantime.

On July 13, 2018, Mr. Wood sent an email to Judge Winmill' s law clerk, Jeff' Severson
Severson"), with a copy to counsel, advising that Mr. Hanson requested a hearing before the Court
entered a judgment on the Defendants' January 5, 2018 Memorandum of Attorney Fees regarding
the Motion to Strike Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony. Severson responded by email:

I will ask the Judge if he is willing to hear from Plaintiff on this. However, I' m sure
he' s going to ask why you did not respond to the initial request for fees back in
January [ 2018] as required. Can you let me know what I should tell him?

Later on July 13, 2018, Mr. Wood sent an email to Severson, with a copy to counsel, stating:

As indicated in my declarations previously filed in this case, I underwent a total knee

replacement surgery on December 29, 2017. I was discharged from the hospital the
following evening. However, the recovery from the surgery was long and foggy. I
was bedridden for a couple of weeks thereafter and in a fog of sedatives and pain
medications for longer. 1 do not even recall the motion for attorney fees having been
filed, just like 1 do not recall much of anything in the month ofJanuary 2018. I would
be happy to present these facts via declaration if that would be helpful or appropriate.
1'. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson

Page 10
12/ 12/ 19

Emphasis added.)

On July 19, 2018, Severson sent an email to Mr. Wood, with a copy to counsel, stating:

I provided the Judge [ with] the letters and entails I received from counsel. He
indicated that he will not accept any other briefs or letters, and he will issue a
decision on the arty fees today.

Also on July 19, 2018, Judge Winmill entered an Order granting the Defendants' January 5,
2018 Memorandum of Attorney Fees and directing Mr. Hanson to pay $ 1, 834 in attorney' s fees.
That amount reflected $ 1, 245 in attorney' s fees owed to the Blaine County Defendants and $ 589 to
the Gooding County Defendants,

On August 1, 2018, a trial was scheduled for January 14, 2019.

Also on August 1, 2018, Mr. Wood sent an email to opposing counsel to schedule mediation.
Later that day, he spoke with Mr. Hanson about a potential settlement.

On August 17, 2018, the Gooding County Defendants and Blaine County Defendants filed a
Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of William Fitzhugh (" Expert Limine Motion"), The

Defendants asserted that the November 22, 2017 Preliminary Disclosure was insufficient and that
Dr. Fitzhugh' s May 18, 2018 Supplemental Declaration contained rebuttal opinions that were not
included in the November 22, 2017 Preliminary Disclosure and were submitted past the March 8,
2018 deadline for rebuttal expert reports.

On August 21, 2018, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson requesting his available dates
for mediation. In a separate email to Mr. Hanson that day, Mr. Wood stated:

5 day jury trial starts January 14. I have a five- day jury trial starting the week before,
making it virtually impossible for me to do your trial. If we don' t settle the case in
mediation you will probably have to find another lawyer to try your case
unfortunately.

On August 28, 2018, Mr. Hanson sent an email to Mr. Wood indicating his schedule was
open for mediation. Thereafter, counsel for the parties were Linable to agree on a mediation date.

On September 27, 2018, Carey, Nurse Peterson' s attorney, sent an email to Mr. Wood asking
for a settlement number. Mr. Wood responded later that day:

What is the loss of eyesight in one eye worth for a middle- aged, single, active guy
like Scott? $ 1 million? $ 2 million? I don' t know. I generally don' t like to establish a

ceiling in pre -mediation negotiations, but if your client is genuinely interested in

T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 11
12/ 12/ 19

trying to settle this before mediation, let me know and I will get together with my
client right away and get you a number.

Later on September 27, 2018, Carey responded to Mr. Wood that he did not think Mr.
Hanson would " get [ past] liability" in the case as it related to Nurse Peterson. He reiterated his
request for a settlement number because it was required by the surety.

On September 28, 2018, in response to Carry' s repeated request for a settlement number, Mr.
Wood responded:

Don, unless you recently had a stroke or something, I think you understand Rule 56
despite your obtuse response. Obviously you dispute liability, but you didn' t answer
my question. Which leads me to believe your client will consider nothing more than
nuisance value, in which case my client would not be interested in talking. I will ask
again, are you willing to concede a reasonable jury could find in my client' s favor on
liability?

Carey responded that he would ask the Court to release Nurse Peterson from the mediation
order based on Mr. Hanson' s refusal to provide a settlement number. Mr. Wood responded that his
previous comment regarding a $ 1 million settlement was " not serious" and that Mr. Hanson would
be reasonable and consider something other than a nuisance offer. ' rhereafter, Carey again requested,
and Mr. Wood declined to provide, a pre -mediation settlement number.

On October 10, 2018, Mr. Hanson sent an email to Mr. Wood stating he would be reasonable
in mediation but was unwilling to settle for a nuisance value. He explained that his physicians at
Moran Eye Center had determined " there [ wasn' t] much that can be done" for his eyesight. Despite
Mr. Hanson' s reference to his treatment at Moran Eye Center, Mr. Wood did not inquire further
about that treatment. IIad he done so, presumably he would have discovered that Mr. Hanson had
sent the Moran Eye Center records to him by email on June 18, 2018, and would have disclosed
those records to the Defendants at that time.

On October 29, 2018, after obtaining Mr. Hanson' s approval, Mr. Wood filed a Motion to
Continue the January 14, 2019 trial. In a supporting Declaration, Mr. Wood stated that he had an
unusually busy trial schedule" in January 2019, including two jury trials and multiple cases
requiring his attention. He stated that as a solo practitioner, it was " impossible" for him to prepare
for all three trials in January 2019, and if the Court declined his request to continue Mr. Hanson' s
January 14, 2019 trial, he would " have no choice but to withdraw from representing [ Mr. Hanson] in
hopes he can find another attorney who can prepare and try his case as scheduled." Also on October
29, 2018, Mr. Wood filed a Conditional Motion to Withdraw, asking the Court to grant him leave to
withdraw if it denied the Motion to Continue.

On November 16, 2018, the Court held a hearing, granted Mr. Wood' s Motion to Continue,
and continued Mr. Hanson' s trial to April 8, 2019.
T. Jason Wood

Scott Hanson
Page 12
12/ 12/ 19

On November 28, 2018, after continued settlement discussions with Carey, Mr. Wood sent
an email to Mr. I lanson asking if he had " any number in mind" for settlement. Mr. Hanson replied
that he had " no clue," that his life had been " compromised forever," that he would suffer lifetime
damages of up to $ 30 million, and that he was " open" to discussing the matter with Mr. Wood.

On December 11, 2018, Mr. Wood sent an email to Dr. Fitzhugh, with a copy to Mr. Hanson,
regarding the April 8, 2018 trial. In that email, he asked Dr. Fitzhugh to provide a more specific
dollar amount for Mr. Hanson' s future treatment needs. He asked Mr. Hanson to let him know as
soon as possible if he had seen a physician for his eye at any time in the last year and, if so, to
provide the physician' s information and the treatment date and results.

Later on December I1, 2018, Mr. Hanson sent a reply email to Mr. Wood noting that he had
previously sent the Moran Eye Center records to Mr. Wood in June 2018. As discussed below, Mr.
Wood informed Bar Counsel during this investigation that he was unaware of Mr. Hanson' s
December 11, 2018 email because, despite being a reply email to Mr. Wood' s initial email, that
email went to his spam inbox without his knowledge. He apparently did not inquire further about
Mr. Hanson' s 2018 eye treatment.

On December 19, 2019, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson suggesting they try to settle
the case. He stated that his records indicated Mr. Hanson had incurred approximately $ 50, 000 in past
medical expenses and expected to incur between $ 40, 000 and $ 100, 000 in future medical expenses.
He stated a " reasonable opening demand" would start at $ 300, 000.

On December 27, 2018, Mr. Hanson sent an email to Mr. Wood suggesting they include Drs.
Crandall and ' Teske of Moran Eye Center in the case because " their input would be invaluable."
Despite that reference, Mr. Wood did not inquire further about Mr. Hanson' s 2018 treatment at
Moran Eye Center.

On January 21, 2019, Mr. Wood filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Expert Limine
Motion. In that Memorandum, he maintained that Dr. Fitzhugh' s expert testimony was admissible
and properly disclosed. He asserted that Dr. Fitzhugh' s Supplemental Declaration was " entirely
consistent" with the written statement attached to the November 22, 2017 Preliminary Disclosure.
According to Mr. Wood, Dr. Fitzhugh' s Supplemental Declaration merely supplemented and
explained the initial report, " including an explanation why the defense expert' s criticisms of his
work is [ sic] mistaken or unwarranted."

On February 26, 2019, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson stating that although Gooding
County and Blaine County were " roost likely the parties primarily at fault," those Defendants had
been dismissed from the case. He stated that Dr. Fitzhugh was the only expert he had identified by
the disclosure deadline and that other experts were " simply too expensive." He asked if Mr. Hanson
had received any treatment for his eye in the past two years and, if so, to advise him as soon as
possible about that treatment. He stated that they needed to try to settle the case, suggested that Mr.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 13

12/ 12/ 19

Hanson' s expectations " may be set way too high," and advised Mr. Hanson to make a settlement
offer. The record indicates that Mr. Wood and Mr. Hanson spoke by phone on February 27, 2019, at
which time Mr. Hanson apparently informed Mr. Wood, again, about his June 2018 treatment at
Moran Eye Center.

On February 27, 2019, Mr. Wood obtained the records from Mr. Hanson' s June 28, 2018
treatment at Southern Idaho Ophthalmology.

Later on February 27, 2019, Mr. Wood sent an email to Dr. Fitzhugh, with a copy to Mr.
Hanson, attaching an office note regarding Mr. Hanson' s April 2018 visit with Dr. Klingler. He also
attached a copy of the medical records from Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 visit to Southern Idaho
Ophthalmology. 2 He asked Dr. Fitzhugh to review those records, to advise if Mr. Hanson needed an
updated exam before trial, and to confirm that Dr. Fitzhugh would be available to testify at trial.

On February 28, 2019, Mr. Wood obtained the records from Mr. Hanson' s June 7, 2018 visit
with Drs. Teske and Crandall of Moran Eye Center. As discussed above, Mr. I Janson originally sent
those records to Mr. Wood by email on . lune 18, 2018, and referenced his Moran Eye Center
treatment in subsequent emails to Mr. Wood in October and December 2018.

Also on February 28, 2019, Mr. Wood served Supplemental Initial Disclosures and Second
Supplemental Discovery Responses that included the records from Mr. Hanson' s June 7, 2018
treatment at Moran Eye Center and his June 28, 2018 treatment at Southern Idaho Ophthalmology.

Also on February 28, 2019, Dr. Fitzhugh sent an email to Mr. Wood recommending that Mr.
Hanson visit another ophthalmologist before trial. He stated that he would " likely be available" to
testify at trial.

Later on February 28, 2019, Mr. Wood forwarded Dr. Fitzhugh' s email to Mr. Hanson and
asked him to immediately schedule an appointment with Dr. Klingler. In response to Mr. Hanson' s
statement about outstanding medical expenses, Mr. Wood estimated that if Mr. Hanson' s past and
future medical expenses totaled $ 160, 000, a reasonable settlement would be $ 250, 000 to $ 500, 000.

On March 1, 2019, the retraining Gooding County Defendants filed a Motion in Limine to
Exclude Medical Records (" Records Limine Motion"), requesting the exclusion of Mr. Hanson' s
medical records from Moran Eye Center and Southern Idaho Ophthalmology as disclosed by Mr.
Wood on February 28, 2019, The Defendants argued that the June 2018 records were " directly
responsive" to their discovery requests and not timely disclosed. According to the Defendants, the

2 Mr. Wood indicated in his February 27, 2019 email to Dr. Fitzhugh that he was attaching Mr. IIarson' s records from
Moran Eye Center. However, Dar Counsel' s Office assumes Mr. Wood meant to reference Mr. IJanson' s records from
Southern Idaho Ophthalmology given his March 19, 2019 Declaration and May I, 2019 Declaration stating that he
received the Southern Idaho Ophthalmology records on February 27, 2019, but did not receive the Moran Eye Center
records until February 28, 2019.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 14
12/ 12/ 19

untimely disclosure " a month before trial" resulted in " sandbagging" the Defendants with additional
information about Mr. Hanson' s alleged injuries.

On March 4, 2019, Mr. Wood sent an email. to Mr. Hanson asking if he had given settlement
any further consideration. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Wood informed Mr. Hanson at
that time that the Defendants had filed a motion to exclude Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 medical records.

Later on March 4, 2019, Mr. Hanson sent an email to Mr. Wood stating he was not interested
in settling for anything less than approximately $ 2 million. Mr. Wood responded that he had a
different opinion of the " likelihood of success" and the amount a jury would award even if Mr.
Hanson prevailed. He stated that he would continue preparing for trial.

On March 19, 2019, without first consulting with Mr. Hanson about the pending Records
Limine Motion, Mr. Wood filed a Response stating, in relevant part, that it was " unclear why Mr.
Hanson' s June 17, 2018 records were not made available to [ Mr. Wood] earlier" given his office' s
standing request for updated medical records from [ Mr. Hanson' s] providers" and " periodic follow-
up requests." IIe asserted the Defendants were not prejudiced by the February 28, 2019 supplemental
disclosures and stated the Defendants' expert opinions were limited to causation.

In his supporting Declaration (" March Declaration"), Mr. Wood stated that his office
received Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 medical records from Southern Idaho Ophthalmology and Moran
Eye Center " for the first time on February 27, 2019 and February 28, 2019, respectively." He stated:

In responding to the Gooding defendants' motion, I have reviewed my office records

and discussed the matter with my staff. It is unclear why the June 2018 records were
not made available to me earlier, as my office had a standing request for updated
medical records from these providers, as well as making periodic follow- up requests.

Notably, had Mr. Wood discussed the matter with Mr. Hanson, he would have known he
received Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 Moran Eye Center records in June 2018, and would not have filed
the March Declaration informing the Court that he received those records " for the first time" on
February 28, 2019.

On March 20, 2019, Nurse Peterson joined in the Records Limine Motion.

Also on March 20, 2019, the Gooding County Defendants filed a Reply Memorandum
asserting Mr. Hanson failed to show " how his seven- month delay in obtaining his medical records
was substantially justified." The Defendants argued the delay was not harmless and noted that the
June 2018 records identified a new medical provider. The Defendants stated that if Mr. FIanson had
timely disclosed the June 2018 records, they would have retained an expert to address his ongoing
treatment. Instead, because Mr. Hanson " represented that he had reached maximum medical
improvement, Defendants focused their argument on causation" and would suffer prejudice if Mr.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 15
12/ 12/ 19

Hanson used the " untimely disclosed medical records as evidence of his continued need for
treatment."

Also on March 20, 2019, Carey sent an email to Mr. Wood offering a $ 25, 000 settlement for
the claim against Nurse Peterson. He stated, " You know the lay of the land so I' ll spare the
analysis." Mr. Wood replied that he knew " where [ Carey was] coming from" and would convey the
25, 000 offer to Mr. Hanson.

Later on March 20, 2019, Mr. Wood conveyed Nurse Peterson' s $ 25, 000 offer to Mr.
Hanson, who rejected the offer. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Wood informed Mr.
Hanson about the Defendants' Records Limine Motion, the Response he filed to that motion, or the
Defendants' Reply Memorandum before asking Mr. Hanson to consider the $ 25, 000 offer.

On March 22, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting the Records Limine Motion and
granting in part, and denying in part, the Expert Limine Motion. With respect to the Records Limine
Motion, the Court found that Mr. Hanson failed to show that his untimely supplementation of
discovery responses with the June 2018 medical records was " justified or harmless." The Court
stated that despite Mr. Wood' s apparent " standing request" for medical records, Mr. Wood did not
timely obtain those records and there was no indication the records were somehow " unavailable."
The Court stated that the failure to disclose the June 2018 records was not harmless because those
records " reveal[ ed] new doctors, new symptoms" and were " available" to Mr. Hanson since . Tune
2018. The Court stated that because the medical records were not timely disclosed, the Defendants
could not have their experts examine the symptoms, depose the doctors, or otherwise incorporate
the information into their defense." Accordingly, the Court excluded Mr. Hanson' s June 2018
medical records from trial.

With respect to the Expert Limine Motion, the Court determined that Dr. Fitzhugh was
qualified in ophthalmology to offer opinions and to use his general experience and specific treatment
of Mr. Hanson for those opinions. However, the Court granted the Expert Limine Motion to the
extent the Defendants sought to exclude new opinions or conclusions included in Dr. Fitzhugh' s
Supplemental Declaration because Mr. Hanson failed to timely disclose Dr. Fitzhugh' s rebuttal
opinions regarding Dr. Letkowitz' s conclusions. The Court declined to preclude Dr. Fitzhugh from
testifying about the content of his Supplemental Declaration " entirely" because some of that content
simply explained] several of the opinions properly disclosed in his January 16, 2018 report." The
Court limited Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony to " conclusions or opinions in properly disclosed reports."

On March 25, 2019, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson attaching a copy of the March
22, 2019 Order. He stated that the Court had " hamstrung Dr. Fitzhugh on the scope of his testimony
at trial" and again advised Mr. Hanson to try to settle the case. He stated that although Mr. Hanson
believed the damages totaled at least $ 2 million, a jury would not award that amount. He suggested a
maximum starting offer of $250, 000 to $ 350, 000.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 16

12/ 12/ 19

Later on March 25, 2019, Mr. Hanson sent an email to Mr. Wood asking if the Court
excluded the medical records because they were not timely disclosed. He explained that he sent
those records to Mr. Wood in June 2018.

On March 29, 2019, Mr. Hanson sent an email to Mr. Wood stating he was " not interested"
in settling the case. He asserted that Nurse Peterson' s " low ball offer" was a result of the Court' s
Order excluding his June 2018 medical records and limiting Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony. IIe asked Mr.
Wood to continue the trial and stated:

I' m not responsible for the late attempt to present my medical records or the
information concerning Dr. Fitzhugh. That information has been in your possession
for months. I need to make decisions on the facts in front of me and not those of my
counsel that has comprised [ sic] my chances of a favorable jury trial 10 days away.
Disappointed is the least of how I' m feeling this morning.

Later on March 29, 2019, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson denying that the problems
in the case were due to the late disclosure of the June 2018 medical records. He stated that many of
the problems were present at the outset and he had tried to explain those problems to Mr. Hanson
over the past year. He stated that although the Court may not grant a motion to continue, it may grant
his motion to withdraw and thereby give Mr. Hanson 20 days to retain new counsel. Later on March
29, 2019, at Mr. Hanson' s request, Mr. Wood filed a Motion to Withdraw.

On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated the April 8, 2019 trial date.

Also on April 3, 2019, Mr. Hanson sent an email to Judge Winmill' s law clerk explaining
why he asked Mr. Wood to withdraw. He asserted that Mr. Wood failed to comply with discovery
rules, disclosed medical records at the " last minute," and failed to properly examine an expert
witness. He stated that Mr. Wood possessed the June 2018 medical records before their February
2019 disclosure and referenced his emails to Mr. Wood regarding those records. He indicated that
Mr. Wood did not inform him about the August 17, 2018 Expert Limine Motion, the March 1, 2019
Records Limine Motion, or the Court' s Order on those motions, until March 25, 2019. He stated that
he terminated Mr. Wood' s representation because, with a jury trial days away, he believed his case
was in " jeopardy."

On April 4, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Wood' s Motion to Withdraw.

On April 24, 2019, Bar Counsel asked Mr. Wood to address the assertions that his conduct in
Mr. Hanson' s case violated the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct (" LR. P. C.").

On May 1, 2019, Mr. Wood filed with the Court an Amended/ Corrected Declaration of T.
Jason Wood (" Amended Declaration"). In that Amended Declaration, he stated that at the time he
filed his March Declaration, he had believed his office received Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 medical
records on February 27, 2019 and February 28, 2019, because those were the dates he recalled first
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson

Page 17
12/ 12/ 19

seeing the records. He stated that on February 27, 2019, he received an email from Southern Idaho
Ophthalmology with a link containing the June 28, 2018 medical records. He stated that he did not
recall seeing the June 27, 2018 medical records until his office received those records directly from
Moran Eye Center on February 28, 2019. He stated that the two medical providers sent Mr.
Hanson' s records by email in February 2019, in response to his office' s request for records of Mr.
Hanson' s most recent treatment.

In his Amended Declaration, Mr. Wood stated that after the Court granted the Records
Limine Motion, it was suggested that Mr. Hanson may have sent an email to him with the Moran
Eye Center records in June 2018. He stated that he then searched his email inbox and found the June
18, 2018 email from Mr. Hanson containing the Moran Eye Center records. He stated that Mr.
Hanson' s email was still in bold in his inbox and marked as unread. He stated that when he
discovered Mr. Hanson' s June 18, 2018 email sometime after the Court granted the Records Limine
Motion, he was " heavily engaged in preparing for trial and then dealing with Mr. Hanson' s demand"
to withdraw. He stated that it did not occur to him until April 29, 2019, that he needed to clarify his
March Declaration based on the information he discovered after filing that Declaration. He stated it
was " never [ his] intent to mislead the Court."

On May 14, 2019, attorney Nathan Olsen filed a Notice of Appearance for Mr. Hanson. On
May 22, 2019, the Court scheduled an October 15, 2019 trial.

On May 29, 2019, Bar Counsel' s Office received Mr. Wood' s response in the disciplinary
investigation. He denied that he knowingly disobeyed a rule of a tribunal under I.R.P. C. 3. 4( c) by
failing to disclose Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 medical records until February 28, 2019. With respect to
the allegation that his failure to timely disclose those records was prejudicial to the administration of
justice under LR. P. C. 8. 4( d), Mr. Wood stated it was an " error" that he failed to see Mr. Hanson' s
June 18, 2018 email. He denied that that error constituted knowing and willful misconduct or
resulted in any " significant prejudice" in Mr. Hanson' s case. He stated that Dr. Fitzhugh would be
permitted to rely upon the June 2018 medical records at trial under F. R. E. 703 and stated that Dr.
Fitzhugh had indicated those records did not " add anything of significance to Mr. Hanson' s clinical
picture" or " alter [ Dr. Fitzhugh' s] opinion."

Regarding the allegation that he failed to abide by Mr. Hanson' s objectives and failed to
consult with Mr. Hanson about the means by which those objectives would be pursued as required
under LR.P. C. 1. 2( a), Mr. Wood stated that he needed a more detailed description of the allegation
to respond. Regarding the allegation that he failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness
under I. R. P. C. 1. 3, he stated that he had requested two extensions in the case that caused some delay:
1) a 60 -day extension of the expert witness disclosure and discovery deadlines; and ( 2) continuance
of the jury trial from January 14, 2019 to April 8, 2019. Ile stated that those extensions were due
primarily to his own medical issues, the Defendants' purported failure to adequately respond to
discovery requests, and various scheduling conflicts. He denied that the extensions caused any
prejudice to Mr. IIanson. Regarding the allegation that he failed to reasonably communicate with
Mr. Hanson as required under LR. P. C. 1. 4, Mr. Wood stated that he tried " very hard to stay in close
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson

Page 18
12/ 12/ 19

communication with all [ his] clients" and did not believe he communicated with Mr. Hanson
significantly less than other clients." He did not recall failing to respond to any of Mr. Hanson' s
inquiries and stated that Mr. Hanson did not complain about a lack of communication until the
representation was terminated.

On June 11, 2019, Bar Counsel' s Office asked Mr. Wood to respond to additional issues. On
July 24, 2019, Bat- Counsel' s Office received Mr. Wood' s responses, as follows:

1) On September 16, 2016, when Mr. Wood filed Mr. Hanson' s Complaint, Mr. Hanson had
neither posted bond nor filed a Declaration of Indigence seeking a bond waiver. On August
28, 2017, the Court dismissed Mr. Hanson' s state law claims against Sheriff Ramsey, Sheriff
Gough, and Officer Gonzalez based on Mr. Hanson' s failure to timely post a bond or timely
file a Declaration of Indigence. With respect to those circumstances, Mr. Wood was asked to
address the following:

a) Whether and when he discussed with Mr. Hanson the requirement that a bond be
posted before or concurrently with filing the Complaint ( I.R. P. C. 1. 2( a) and 1. 4):

Mr. Wood responded that he discussed the bond during his initial phone call with Mr.
Hanson. Ile stated that he explained to Mr. Hanson that the ITCA claims were " surplusage" and also
would have explained to Mr. Hanson the bond requirement under Idaho Code § 6- 610 applicable to
the state law claims. He stated that the statute of limitations was about to run when Mr. Hanson
retained him and he asserted there was " no established procedure for posting a bond or seeking a
waiver thereof with the Court before actually commencing a lawsuit" on Mr. Hanson' s behalf.
Emphasis in original.) He stated that in his experience, " the federal court had consistently waived
the bond requirement upon proof [ of] indigence submitted after commencement of the action" and
therefore he " would not have had an urgent need" to communicate the bond " requirement" to Mr.
Hanson. ( Emphasis in original.)

b) Assuming Mr. Hanson was indigent at the time the Complaint was filed, address why
the Declaration of Indigence was not timely filed (I.R.P. C. 1. 2( a) and 1. 3):

Mr. Wood disputed that Mr. Hanson' s Declaration of Indigence was untimely " merely
because it was not filed before the lawsuit was commenced" and stated that he did not file the bond
waiver motion before filing the Complaint for multiple reasons. First, he questioned how an attorney
could file a bond waiver or indigency declaration " in a case that does not exist on the Court' s
docket" given the federal courts' electronic filing system that allows attorneys to file documents only
by filing a lawsuit." He stated that neither Idaho Code § 6- 610 nor any federal or state rule of civil
procedure identified such a procedure. He maintained it was " impossible" to file a bond waiver or
indigency declaration before filing a complaint. Second, he stated that Mr. IIanson' s case was the
only case in his years of practice in which a court required the plaintiff to request a bond waiver
before filing a lawsuit. Third, he stated that Mr. Hanson " waited until the 1 Ith hour to contact" him
about the case and, if it had been necessary to file a bond waiver before filing the complaint, " there
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 19
12/ 12/ 19

was no time to either discover or invent [ a procedure for such a filing] before the statute of
limitations barred Mr. Hanson' s claim." He asserted that pursuing such an effort would have " wasted
precious time" and " been a huge gamble against [ Mr. Hanson' s] far superior Section 1983 claim in
order to preserve a throwaway ITCA claim." fourth, despite Judge Winmill' s decision, Mr. Wood
asserted it was " far from clear" that Mr. Hanson' s bond waiver request was untimely. IIe asserted
that " the majority of the Idaho federal bench has held that the bond requirement may be waived by
proof of indigence submitted after the complaint." In support of that argument, Mr. Wood cited a
number of cases, including:

1) Judge Nye' s Memorandum Decision and Order in Sanchez v. County of Bonneville, 1: 17 - CV -

00166 - DCN ( D. Idaho Aug. 7, 2018). In that case, the defendants asserted that Sanchez' s
negligence claim should be dismissed because he failed to post a bond before initiating suit
against a law enforcement officer. Judge Nye referenced precedent providing that a court
must dismiss a case if the plaintiff fails to post the required bond, but explained that pursuant
to Kangas v. Wright, No. 1: 15- CV- 00577- CWD ( D. Idaho Nov. 4, 2016), the state law
claims of an indigent prisoner are not barred for failure to post a bond. In that case, the Court
determined that Sanchez was an " indigent prisoner' and therefore declined to dismiss the
negligence claim for failure to post the required bond;

2) Judge Dale' s Memorandum Decision and Order in Kucirek for Estate & Heirs of Grossklaus
v. ,Tared, No. 3: 17- CV- 00028- CWD ( D. Idaho Sept. 5, 2018). In that case, the Court noted
that in the past it had " granted leeway to plaintiffs who fail to meet the requirement if they
provide a reason for the failure." ( Emphasis added.) The Court permitted the plaintiff to

late -file the bond" and thereby avoid dismissal of the state law claims;

3) Judge Bush' s Memorandum Decision and Order re: Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment in Stane v. Nielsen, 4: 16 -CV -00095 -REB ( D. Idaho Mar. 27, 2018). In that case,
the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his civil complaint and contemporaneously
requested in forma pauperis status, which the Court granted. Under those circumstances, the
Court stated that it had " effectively waived Idaho Code § 6- 610' s bond requirement, such
that Plaintiff' s failure to post a bond does not mandate dismissal of his state law negligence
claims" against the law enforcement defendants;

4) Judge Winmill' s Memorandum Decision and Order in Stucki v. City of Pocatello, 4: 15 - CV -

00422 ( D. Idaho July 6, 2016). In that case, the plaintiffs sought a bond waiver when they
filed their complaint. When the Court denied that waiver, the plaintiffs posted a $ 250 bond
before filing an amended complaint. The Court determined that the defendants' argument
that the plaintiffs' state law claims should be dismissed for failing to post a sufftcient bond
ignore[ d] the unique facts of this case which compels the Court to conclude that the
Plaintiffs substantially complied with the bond requirement imposed by the statute."
Emphasis added.) Based on that substantial compliance, the Court declined to dismiss the
state law claims and directed the parties to file briefs on the bond amount;
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 20
12/ 12/ 19

5) Judge Winmill' s Memorandum Decision and Order in Raymond v. Sloan, 1: 13- CV- 423-
BLW ( D. Idaho Dec. 6, 2013). In that case, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging state law
claims against law enforcement on September 26, 2013, and filed a bond waiver motion and
Affidavit of Indigence on October 31, 2013. The Court determined that the plaintiff was
financially strapped but not indigent" and set the bond at $ 500; and

6) Judge Lodge' s Order in White v. Ada County . Jail, 1: 09- ev- 00448- EJL ( D. Idaho Jan. 12,
2010). In that case, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging state law claims against law
enforcement on September 11, 2009, and filed a bond waiver motion and affidavit asserting
indigency on November 25, 2009. The Court determined the plaintiff was indigent and
granted the bond waiver.

c)
Specify the approximate date he informed Mr. Hanson about the Defendants' January
23, 2017 Motion to Dismiss and the Court' s August 28, 2017 Order granting the
Motion to Dismiss ( I.R. P. C. 1. 4):

Mr. Wood responded that he believed he told Mr. Hanson " shortly" after receipt of the
motion and order. He stated that it was his practice to email documents to clients " shortly after
receipt of same" but " no later than" when he filed a response to a motion. He stated that he was
unable to locate those emails to Mr. Hanson, possibly because his office' s email address and server
changed three times since the events in question. He stated that his former paralegal' s email
correspondence reflected that a copy of the January 23, 2017 Motion to Dismiss was sent to Mr.
Hanson by May 31, 2017, and that Mr. Hanson received the Court' s August 28, 2017 Order by
September 14, 2017. He stated that " neither the motion nor the Court' s order had any substantive
impact on Mr. Hanson' s claims."

2) On September 28, 2017, Officer Wayt filed a Second Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Wood did not
respond to that motion. Mr. Wood was asked to explain his decision not to file a response
and to address whether and when he informed Mr. Hanson of that decision and of the Court' s
Decision granting the Second Motion to Dismiss ( I. R. P. C. 1. 2( a), 1. 3, and 1. 4.):

Mr. Wood responded that the issue raised by Wayt in the Second Motion to Dismiss " had
already been adjudicated in [ Wayt' s] favor on his first motion to dismiss, in which lie sought
dismissal of all claims against him with prejudice." He stated that Ire filed a " comprehensive
opposition" to the first Motion to Dismiss and, thereafter, the Court entered its August 28, 2017
Memorandum Decision and Order granting Wayt' s motion and dismissing all claims against Wayt
without leave to amend, with one exception." He stated that the Court dismissed with prejudice the
state created danger" claim with leave to amend and required that an amended complaint allege
facts showing Wayt was " aware of an immediate and known danger to Mr. Hanson if he refused to
take the prescription eye drops to the jail." He stated on or around September 12, 2017, after

receiving the August 28, 2017 Memorandum Decision and Order, he called Mr. Hanson and asked
what information [ Mr. Hanson] gave defendant Wayt at the time of his arrest" because Mr. Hanson
was " the only witness to the arrest other than Wayt with information that could potentially satisfy the
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 21
12/ 12/ 19

Court' s requirements" for an amended complaint. He stated that Mr. Hanson could not provide any
information " beyond his request to Wayt for his post -cataract surgery eye drops." He stated that he
explained to Mr. Hanson that such information was insufficient and that " it would be a waste of time
and effort, and could possibly result in an order of Rule 11 sanctions" if they " proceeded with the
state -created -danger claim in the absence of a good faith basis for allegations sufficient to satisfy the
Court' s requirements." He stated that Mr. Hanson authorized him not to oppose Wayt' s Second
Dismiss Motion.

3) On November 22, 2017, the deadline for Mr. Hanson' s expert witness disclosure, Mr. Wood
served a document entitled Plaintiff' s Preliminary Expert Witness Disclosure identifying Dr.
Fitzhugh as an expert witness and providing Dr. Fitzhugh' s written statement. In his written
statement, Dr. Fitzhugh provided his preliminary opinion and stated: " This is an admittedly
brief report due [ to] the extenuating circumstances for the unanticipated deadline."
Emphasis added.) Also on November 22, 2017, Mr. Wood requested a 30 -day extension to
disclose expert witnesses and described various medical issues he had experienced since
early June 2017 that prevented him from working on Mr. Hanson' s case.

On December 18, 2017, Mr. Wood filed the Modify Motion requesting a 60 -day extension
for expert witness disclosures, discovery, and dispositive motions. In a December 22, 2017
Supplemental Declaration, he stated that he was unable to work on Mr. Hanson' s case during
parts of his medical recovery and, when he returned to work, discovered how " behind" he
was in Mr. Hanson' s case. Regarding those circumstances, Mr. Wood was asked to:

a) Describe the date( s) and substance of his communications with Dr. Fitzhugh between
June 7, 2017 and November 22, 2017 ( I. R. P. C. 1. 2( a) and 1. 3):

Mr. Wood responded that he outlined the " general timeline" of his communications with Dr.
Fitzhugh in the Declarations he filed in support of his extension motions. He stated that he
experienced " a lot of difficulty getting in touch with Dr. Fitzhugh." He stated that his " earliest
record" of a conversation with Dr. Fitzhugh was on September 25, 2017, when Dr. Fitzhugh
requested a copy of the medical records from his former office. Mr. Wood stated that he " obtained
those records and provided them to Dr. Fitzhugh." He referenced emails documenting his subsequent
communications with Dr. Fitzhugh through November 22, 2017. He maintained that his conduct
complied with I.R.P. C. 1. 2( a) and 1. 3, and cited his " success in obtaining Dr. Fitzhugh' s opinions
and getting them admitted and considered in opposition to the defendants' motions for summary
judgment, which was critical in preserving Mr. Hanson' s claims for trial."

Mr. Wood stated that although initially " helpful on liability," Dr. Fitzhugh later " eliminated
the defendants' delay in providing Mr. Hanson with his eye drops as a causative factor" in the retinal
detachment. He stated that Dr. Fitzhugh later indicated that Mr. Hanson suffered only " minor" vision
loss and " questioned the value of the case in that regard." Mr. Wood stated that he had contacted
actively licensed retinal specialists at Dr. Fitzhugh' s suggestion, but those specialists were
prohibitively expensive" and Dr. Fitzhugh later agreed to provide his expert services at no charge.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 22
12/ 12/ 19

b) Address whether and when he informed Mr. Hanson that medical issues were
preventing him from working on the case ( I. R. P. C. 1. 4):

Mr. Wood responded that he discussed his medical issues with Mr. Ilanson several times and
explained to Mr. Hanson that those medical issues were " the reason it sometimes took [ Mr. Wood] a
while to respond" to Mr. Hanson and were the basis for some of the requested extensions. Ile stated
that he specifically recalled discussing his medical issues with Mr. Hanson before September 16,
2017.

4) On December 22, 2017, the Court denied the Defendants' November 30, 2017 Motion to
Strike Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony, but ordered Mr. Hanson to pay fees associated with that
motion. On January 5, 2018, the Defendants filed a Memorandum of Attorney Fees. Mr.
Wood did not file any response. On July 19, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing Mr.
Hanson to pay $ 1, 834 in attorney' s fees to the Defendants Regarding those circumstances,
Mr. Wood was asked to address:

a)
Why he did not file a response to the Memorandum of Attorney Fees ( I.R.P. C. 1. 2( a)
and 1. 3):

Mr. Wood responded that his reason for not filing a response was explained in his July 2018
email to Judge Winmill' s law clerk. As discussed above, Mr. Wood stated in that email that after he
was released from his December 29, 2017 knee surgery, he experienced a ` long and foggy" recovery
that left him " bedridden for a couple of weeks thereafter and in a fog of sedatives and pain
medications for longer." He stated in that email that he did not recall the Defendants' filing of the
Memorandum of Attorney Fees or " much of anything in the month of January 2018."

b) Address who paid the ordered fees and when those fees were paid:

Mr. Wood responded that as of his April 4, 2019 withdrawal from the case, none of the
ordered fees had been paid. He stated that no payment was required until the Court entered a final
judgment.

c) Address whether and when he informed Mr. Hanson about the December 22, 2017
ruling and July 19, 2018 Order directing Mr. Hanson to pay attorney' s fees ( I. R. P. C.
1. 4):

Mr. Wood responded:

I have no recollection nor record whether or when I informed Mr. Hanson. Honestly,
it is unlikely the Order was ever forwarded to Mr. Hanson, because I only just the
other day ( July 17, 2019, at 6: 30 p. m.) discovered that there is no copy of the Order in
my electronic file. However, my staff and I can attest that when this occurred I
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson

Page 23
12/ 12/ 19

immediately committed to pay the ordered fees myself, either by deducting that
amount from my attorney fees in the event of a recovery for Mr. Hanson, or to pay it
myself in the event of no recovery. I fully intend to honor that commitment.

5) On March 8, 2018, the deadline expired for Mr. Manson to submit rebuttal expert reports. Mr.
Wood did not submit any rebuttal expert reports by that deadline. On May 18, 2018, he filed
Dr. Fitzhugh' s Supplemental Declaration, in which Dr. Fitzhugh rebutted factual and opinion
statements made by defense expert Dr. Lefkowitz. On March 22, 2019, the Court granted the
Defendants' Motion in Limine, in part, to exclude Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony to the extent it
included new opinions or conclusions not included in Dr. Fitzhugh' s November 22, 2019
statement. Regarding those circumstances, Mr. Wood was asked to address why he did not
submit any rebuttal expert reports by March 8, 2018, and instead submitted Dr. Fitzhugh' s
Supplemental Declaration rebutting certain statements of the Defendants' expert after the
March 8, 2018 deadline ( I. R. P. C. 1. 2( a), 1. 3, and 3. 4( c)):

Mr. Wood responded that he did not submit a rebuttal expert report because it was not
required or called for." He stated that F. R. C. P. 26( a)( 2)( B) requires a party using an expert witness
to disclose a report containing a complete statement of the expert' s opinions and the basis for those
opinions, but allows that expert to supplement and explain his report in oral testimony. He stated that
under F. R.C. P. 37( c)( 1), an expert who fails to disclose information required under F. R.C. P. 26( a)
may not testify about that information unless the failure was " harmless." He cited caselaw providing
that an expert may testify at trial about how the opposing party' s expert' s criticisms of a report are
unwarranted, even if that expert did not provide such information in their original report.

Mr. Wood stated that Dr. Fitzhugh' s Supplemental Declaration was consistent with, and
simply elaborated upon, the initial report, " including an explanation [ of] why the defense expert' s
criticisms of his work is [ sic] mistaken or unwarranted." He noted that the Court did not preclude Dr.
Fitzhugh from testifying about the Supplemental Declaration entirely, and instead limited Dr.
Fitzhugh' s testimony to opinions included in the initial report. He denied that his conduct violated
the LR. P. C. and maintained that Dr. Fitzhugh' s Supplemental Declaration did not " contain true
rebuttal opinion contemplated" under F. R. C. P. 26.

6) On February 27, 2019, Mr. Wood obtained the records from Mr. Hanson' s June 28, 2018
visit to Southern Idaho Ophthalmology. On February 28, 2019, he obtained the records from
Mr. Hanson' s June 7, 2018 visit to Moran Eye Center. Mr. Hanson had previously sent the
Moran Bye Center records to Mr. Wood by email on June 18, 2018, but Mr. Wood apparently
did not see that email. He disclosed Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 medical records on February 28,
2019. On March 1, 2019, the Defendants filed the Records Limine Motion to exclude those
records as untimely.

In his March 19, 2019 response to the Records Limine Motion, Mr. Wood stated that his
office had a " standing request" with Mr. Hanson' s medical providers for updated records. Ile
stated that his office also made " periodic follow- up requests." On March 22, 2019, the Court
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson

Page 24
12/ 12/ 19

granted the Records Limine Motion, thereby excluding Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 medical
records, because they were not timely disclosed and because there was no indication the
records were somehow unavailable between June 2018 and February 2019. Regarding those
circumstances, Mr. Wood was asked to describe the efforts he made to obtain Mr. Hanson' s
medical records, including the dates of the " periodic follow- up requests" to medical
providers and the dates he communicated with Mr. Hanson about ongoing treatment between
June 7, 2018 and February 28, 2019 ( I.R. P. C. 1. 2( a), 1. 3, and 1. 4):

Mr. Wood responded that until paralegal. Laufer' s retirement in mid- June 2018, she
periodically checked with Southern Idaho Ophthalmology and requested copies of the notes from all
of Mr. Hanson' s visits. He stated that he could not locate any record of a specific request until
February 27, 2019, when his office received Mr. Hanson' s records pursuant to an updated request.
He stated that some of the relevant records " may have been lost' when Laufer retired or when he
switched email services in May 2017 and July 2017. He stated that based on those changes, " many
entails from before July 2017 were lost," although he was still in the process of trying to recover
records from Laufer' s hard drive.

Mr. Wood stated that he " obviously was unaware of Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 doctor visits"
as demonstrated by his subsequent emails to Mr. Hanson requesting an update on any treatment. He
referenced specifically his December 11, 2018 email to Dr. Fitzhugh and Mr. Hanson and his
February 26, 2019 email to Mr. Hanson about any updates. He stated that after learning that Mr.
Hanson maintained that the June 2018 records were sent to his office, he located Mr. Hanson' s
unopened June 2018 email and two other emails from Mr. Hanson in his spam inbox. He stated that
he did " not know how or why any of [Mr. Hanson' s emails] ended up in [ his] Spambox." In any
event, he asserted that the Court' s Order excluding the June 2018 medical records did not " alter Mr.
IIanson' s clinical picture, nor do they affect Dr. Fitzhugh' s opinions."

On June 17, 2019, Mr. Hanson submitted information contending that Mr. Wood failed to:
1) comply with discovery rules by making a " last minute attempt to provide medical records'; ( 2)
vet an expert witness ( Dr. Fitzhugh); ( 3) promptly inform him that the Defendants filed a motion to

exclude medical records and Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony; and ( 4) name Nurse Peterson' s employer, a
private health care provider, as a defendant.

On June 18, 2019, Bar Counsel' s Office sent a letter to Mr. Wood requesting his response to
additional issues raised by Mr. Hanson. On July 24, 2019, Mr. Wood submitted the following
responses:

1) On February 28, 2019, Mr. Wood disclosed to opposing counsel Mr. Hanson' s medical
records from the June 2018 visits with Moran Eye Center and Southern Idaho
Ophthalmology, Mr. Hanson previously sent at least some of those records to Mr. Wood by
email in . Tune 2018, and again in December 2018. The Court excluded those records because
they were not timely disclosed. Regarding those circumstances, Mr. Wood was asked to
address the following assertions with reference to I. R.P. C. 1. 2( a), 1. 3, 1. 4, and 3. 4( c):
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 25
12/ 12/ 19

a) That he did not communicate with Mr. Hanson about the June 2018 medical records
despite Mr. Hanson' s emails regarding those records;

b) That he did not timely disclose the June 2018 medical records;

c) That he did not promptly inform Mr. Hanson about the Defendants' Records Limine
Motion or the Court' s Order granting that motion; and

d) That he discussed a settlement with Mr. Hanson at a time when Mr. Hanson was

unaware of the pending Records Limine Motion and Order granting that motion.

Mr. Wood responded that he was previously unaware of Mr. Hanson' s June and December
2018 emails and did not communicate with Mr. Hanson about the June 2018 treatment referenced in
those emails or disclose the respective records. He stated the Defendants filed the Records Limine
Motion on March 1, 2019, the Court issued its decision on March 22, 2019, and he advised Mr.
Hanson about the matter on March 25, 2019. He stated: " Although it certainly could have been
communicated earlier, I believe this was reasonably prompt and diligent in accordance with I. R. P. C.
1. 3 and 1. 4." He denied any " knowing" violation under LR. P. C. 3. 4( c).

Regarding the settlement discussions, Mr. Wood responded that Mr. Ranson and he " had
been communicating regarding settlement almost nonstop" during the prior eight months. He stated
that despite his efforts before March 1, 2019, Mr. Hanson " continued to maintain an extremely and
unreasonably high opinion of the value of his case." He stated that Mr. Hanson and he had discussed
that unrealistically high valuation from the outset of representation and throughout the case. Ile
stated that the Records Limine Motion " had nothing to do with that nor why [ Mr. Hanson] needed to
make an effort to settle" the case. He stated that he was " firmly convinced that the [ Records Limine
Motion] should and would be denied" and stated that on March 23, 2019, Dr. Fitzhugh advised that
the exclusion of the June 2018 medical records " would have no impact on [ Dr. Fitzhugh' s] otherwise
admissible opinions." Mr. Wood stated that during settlement negotiations, he did not consider Mr.
Hanson to be " at any significant disadvantage" based on the exclusion of the June 2018 records. He
stated that " the last time [ he] suggested to Mr. Hanson that [ they] attempt to settle was on March 20,
2019" and, thereafter, he " made it clear" to Mr. Hanson that he was prepared to proceed to trial. He
stated: " Consequently, neither the motion nor the Order in limine could nor did have any impact on
my settlement discussions with Mr. Hanson."

2) Mr. Hanson contended that he asked Mr. Wood to name as a defendant a private health care
provider identified as Well Path Care, also known as " CCS" or " CHC." According to Mr.
Hanson, Mr. Wood advised him that that provider had " qualified immunity." Regarding
those circumstances, Mr. Wood was asked to address his discussions with Mr. Hanson about
naming the private health care provider as a defendant ( I. R. P. C. 1. 2( a), 1. 3 and 1. 4):
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 26
12/ 12/ 19

Mr. Wood responded that Mr. Hanson did not ask him to name Nurse Peterson' s corporate
employer. Ile stated that Mr. Hanson " did ask if the corporation could or should be added" and he
advised Mr. Hanson not to do so for several reasons. First, Mr. Manson did not contact him for
representation until shortly before the statute of limitations ran and there was " not enough time to
identify and serve the corporation." Second, even with sufficient time, Mr. Hanson did not have a
viable claim against the corporation under Section 1983 for several reasons, including the fact that
private corporations are not " state actors" for liability purposes and employer vicarious liability was
not recognized under Section 1983. He denied informing Mr. Hanson that the corporation was
entitled to qualified immunity and noted that under Section 1983, " only individuals acting under
color of state law are entitled to qualified immunity." Third, the only potential cause of action Mr.
Hanson might have against the corporation under Idaho law was for medical negligence. He
explained that this was not a viable claim because it required " affirmative proof by direct expert
testimony and by a preponderance of all the competent evidence" that Nurse Peterson negligently
failed to meet the applicable standard of practice. He stated that at the time he filed Mr. Hanson' s
Complaint, there was no evidence to support a meritorious medical negligence claim against the

corporation. He stated that during an initial phone call, he explained to Mr. Hanson that a claim
against the corporation was inadvisable for those reasons.

Mr. Wood concluded his response by explaining that cases like Mr. Hanson' s case were
difficult because many jurors assumed the " plaintiff had it coming or that he easily could have
avoided the injury if he had not chosen to engage in criminal behavior." He stated that he discussed
that issue with Mr. Hanson " early and often" and Mr. Hanson initially appeared to accept the
situation. He stated that Mr. Hanson subsequently believed he would prevail and placed an
unrealistic valuation on his claims. Mr. Wood stated:

Yes, I could have communicated more or better with Mr. Hanson, an issue made

more problematic than it otherwise would have been due to my health issues, of
which Mr. Hanson was well aware. However, there is no evidence or reason to

believe that this, or any of the other issues raised in [ the disciplinary investigation],
has had or will have a negative impact on his case.

Mr. Wood stated that he devoted hundreds of hours " in a case that involved an uphill battle

against powerful government interests with a biased jury." Ile stated:

Nevertheless, I do not claim to be perfect. I make mistakes. As a result of the issues

raised herein I have implemented several new office policies to increase
communication and to avoid miscommunication and misunderstanding. For example,
I have associated with several other highly competent attorneys who are willing to
assist in the event of health problems and to cover for me when I go on vacation. I
made it a policy that copies of everything received or generated by my office on a
case must automatically be sent to the client within 24 hours of receipt. I have also
instituted a policy of documenting all client communications. I am open to others.
I'. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson

Page 27
12/ 12/ 19

On August 8, 2019, Mr. Hanson submitted a reply. He disputed Mr. Wood' s explanation that
the June 2018 medical records were not timely disclosed because Mr. Hanson' s emails went to a
Spam inbox and asserted that Mr. Hanson' s email account would have flagged those emails as spam.
He noted that his December 11, 2018 email to Mr. Wood referencing the June 2018 medical records
was a reply to Mr. Wood' s email earlier that day from the same email address. Regarding the
settlement discussions, Mr. Hanson stated that Nurse Peterson' s counsel made the $ 25, 000
settlement offer after the pretrial conference at which it was determined the June 2018 medical
records were not timely disclosed and would be excluded. He stated that Mr. Wood did not inform
him about that decision until March 25, 2019, three days after the Court entered its Order excluding
the medical records and five days after Mr. Wood relayed Nurse Peterson' s $ 25, 000 settlement offer
for his consideration.

Mr. Hanson asserted that Dr. Fitzhugh was not " properly vetted" by Mr. Wood. He stated
that Mr. Wood had been in contact with Dr. Fitzhugh as early as October 13, 2017, and again on or
around December 11, 2018, which was sufficient time to submit timely expert reports. Regarding the
failure to name Nurse Peterson' s employer as a defendant, Mr. Hanson maintained that he asked Mr.
Wood " several times" why the employer was not named and Mr. Wood told him during a phone call
that the employer had qualified immunity.

On September 11, 2019, Mr. Wood submitted a supplemental response. He explained that not
all of Mr. Ilanson' s emails were delivered to his spam inbox and instead those deliveries appeared to
be " random." He referenced emails from other clients and opposing counsel that were also delivered
to his spam inbox. He reiterated that he did not discover Mr. Hanson' s emails regarding the June
2018 medical records in his spam inbox until sometime later. Regarding Nurse Peterson' s employer,
Mr. Wood denied that he ever informed Mr. Hanson that the employer had qualified immunity. He
suggested that Mr. Hanson may have misunderstood his explanation as to why the employer would
not be named as a defendant. Regardless, he stated that he was concerned that a former client was
dissatisfied and therefore had undertaken a review of his practice to make improvements and avoid a
similar situation in the future.

On September 19, 2019, the Court entered a Memorandum Decision and Order denying
Corporal Shubert and Officer Gonzalez' s motion requesting reconsideration of the July 9, 2018
decision denying summary judgment. Corporal Shubert and Officer Gonzalez appealed that decision
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on that appeal, the October 15, 2019 trial date was
subsequently vacated.

On September 26, 2019, Olsen filed Plaintiff' s Notice of Intent to Use Previously Filed
Pretrial Filings, as supplemented by Mr. Hanson' s Supplemental Witness List and June 2019 Moran
Fye Center records. The Supplemental Witness List is sealed.

On September 27, 2019, Mr. Wood sent an email to Bar Counsel' s Office attaching a copy of
the September 26, 2019 Notice of Intent. He stated that Olsen filed a notice indicating he intended to
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 28
12/ 12/ 19

rely on the witness list and other submissions prepared by Mr. Wood. He asserted that such actions
belied Mr. Hanson' s allegations that he was unprepared for the April 2019 trial date.

In November 2019, Mr. Hanson settled his claim against Nurse Peterson for an undisclosed
amount. The Court dismissed Nurse Peterson with prejudice on November 6, 2019.

The relevant sections of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct are Rules 1. 2( a), 1. 3, and
1. 4, which state in pertinent part:

Rule 1. 2 — Scope of Representation

a) Subject to paragraphs ( c) and ( d), a lawyer shall abide by a client' s decisions

concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1. 4, shall
consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A
lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized
to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client' s decision
whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the
client' s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered,
whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.

Rule 1. 3 — Diligence

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

Rule 1. 4 — Communication

a) A lawyer shall:
1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with
respect to which the client' s informed consent, as defined in Rule

1. 0( e), is required by these Rules;

2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the
client' s objectives are to be accomplished;
3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; including a
request for an accounting as required by Rule 1. 5( f); and
5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer' s
conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not

permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit
the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

The standard of proof in attorney discipline matters is clear and convincing evidence. Clear
and convincing evidence is a high standard of proof requiring substantial corroboration to establish a
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 29
12/ 12/ 19

fact otherwise disputed. In the present case, we find clear and convincing evidence of professional
misconduct.

Under I.R. P. C. 1. 2, a lawyer shall abide by a client' s decisions concerning the objectives of
representation and consult with the client as to the means by which those objectives will be pursued.
Under I. R. P. C. 1. 3, a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Under LR.P. C. 1. 4,
a lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstances with respect to which the
client' s informed consent is required, reasonably consult with the client about the means by which
the client' s objectives will be accomplished, keep the client reasonably informed about the status of
the matter, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation.

With respect to those Rules, Bar Counsel' s investigation focused primarily on three issues:
1) Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 medical records; ( 2) the involvement of Dr. Fitzhugh; and ( 3) the bond
waiver request. Below is a discussion of those issues.

1) Mr. Hanson' s June 2018 medical records.

a) Moran Eye Center.

Mr. Hanson was treated by Moran Eye Center on June 7, 2018. IIe sent those medical
records to Mr. Wood by email on June 18, 2018. On October 10, 2018, Mr. Hanson sent an email to
Mr. Wood referencing his treatment at Moran Eye Center. On December 11, 2018, in response to
Mr. Wood' s email requesting information about any treatment Mr. Hanson had received in the past
year, Mr. Hanson sent a reply email to Mr. Wood advising that he sent the Moran Eye Center
records to Mr. Wood in June 2018. On December 27, 2018, Mr. Hanson sent another email to Mr.
Wood referencing his treatment at Moran Eye Center.

Mr. Wood responded in this investigation that he did not see Mr. Hanson' s June 18, 2018
email until he searched for that email in or around April 2019. He stated that he found the email
unopened in his inbox. He stated that he did not see Mr. IIanson' s other emails, including apparently
the December 11, 2018 email that was sent as a direct reply to Mr. Wood' s email asking about
treatment, because some or all of those emails were delivered, unbeknownst to him, to his spam
inbox.

Although Mr. Wood maintained that he was not aware of his receipt of any of Mr. Hanson' s
emails regarding the Moran Eye Center treatment between June and December 2018, there is no
evidence in the record that he ever consulted with Mr. Hanson about continuing treatment during
that six- month period. Had Mr. Wood done so, he would have learned that Mr. Hanson was treated
at Moran Eye Center in June 2018 and, presumably, would have timely disclosed those records to
the Defendants.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 30
12/ 12/ 19

As discussed above, Mr. Wood did not disclose the June 2018 Moran Eye Center records to
the Defendants until February 28, 2019. Based on that untimely disclosure, the Court granted the
Defendants' request to exclude those records at trial. There is no evidence in the record that Mr.
Wood promptly informed or consulted with Mr. Hanson about the Defendants' request to exclude
the June 2018 medical records. Nor is there any evidence that he consulted with Mr. Hanson about
the Response he filed denying that he received the Moran Eye Center records until February 2019.

As Mr. Hanson noted, Mr. Wood relayed Nurse Peterson' s settlement offer to him without

informing him about the status of his case, i. e., that the June 2018 medical records were not timely
disclosed and would be excluded at trial. Whether or not those records were integral to Mr. Hanson' s
case or his consideration of Nurse Peterson' s settlement offer is somewhat beside the point. Mr.
Hanson had a right to know, and Mr. Wood had an obligation to inform Mr. Hanson, about the
exclusion of the June 2018 medical records so Mr. Hanson could make decisions based on a full
knowledge of his case.

With respect to the Moran Eye Center records, we find cleat- and convincing evidence that
Mr. Wood failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness as required under I. R. P. C. 1. 3, and
failed to reasonably communicate with Mr. Hanson as required under LR. P. C. 1. 4.

b) Southern Idaho Ophthalmology.

Mr. Hanson was treated by Southern Idaho Ophthalmology on June 28, 2018. Mr. Wood did
not disclose those medical records to the Defendants until February 28, 2019. Based on that untimely
disclosure, and the fact that there was no evidence showing the records were somehow " unavailable"
to Mr. Wood before February 28, 2019, the Court excluded the records at trial.

Mr. Wood informed the Court that his office had standing requests with Southern Idaho
Ophthalmology for Mr. Hanson' s records and also made follow- up requests. However, he was
unable to provide any documentation of those requests for the eight- month period between Mr.
Hanson' s June 28, 2018 treatment and Mr. Wood' s February 28, 2019 disclosure of those records.
There was no evidence in the record that he ever informed Mr. Hanson about those requests and
Southern Idaho Ophthalmology' s alleged failure over an eight- month period to respond to those
requests with updated medical records, which Mr. Hanson likely could have obtained directly if
asked. Given these circumstances, we find clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Wood failed to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness as required under I.R. P. C. 1. 3, with respect to the
untimely disclosure of Mr. Hanson' s Southern Idaho Ophthalmology records.

2) Dr. Fitzhugh.

Dr. Fitzhugh was Mr. Hanson' s heating physician at the time of the cataract surgeries and, as
such, was a likely witness for Mr. Hanson' s case from the outset. Mr. Hanson retained Mr. Wood on
or around September 7, 2016. Yet the first record of any communication between Mr. Wood and Dr.
Fitzhugh was over one year later, on September 27, 2017. During that September 27, 2017
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 31
12/ 12/ 19

communication, Dr. Fitzhugh informed Mr. Wood that he would need to review Mr. Hanson' s
medical records in order to provide an opinion. Mr. Wood' s office forwarded those records on an
unspecified date no later than October 13, 2017.

On November 3, 2017, Dr. Fitzhugh sent an email to Mr. Wood stating he had reviewed Mr.
Hanson' s records and offered his opinion about the deterioration of vision in Mr. Hanson' s right eye.
Although Mr. Hanson was required to disclose his expert witnesses by November 22, 2017, there is
no evidence in the record that Mr. Wood communicated with Dr. Fitzhugh about that opinion until
November 21, 2017, one day before the disclosure deadline.

On November 21, 2017, Mr. Wood sent an email to Dr. Fitzhugh requesting a brief summary
of Mr. Hanson' s eye issues and treatments. On November 22, 2017, the disclosure deadline, Dr.
Fitzhugh provided to Mr. Wood a written statement that was " brief' due to what Dr. Fitzhugh
described as an " unanticipated deadline." Mr. Wood filed a Preliminary Disclosure with Dr.
Fitzhugh' s statement on November 22, 2017. However, he did not file with that disclosure Dr.
Fitzhugh' s curriculum vitae and other required information.

Thereafter, the Defendants sought to exclude Dr. Fitzhugh' s November 2017 statement
because, in part, the disclosure did not include a curriculum vitae and other required information.
There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Wood informed Mr. Hanson that the Defendants sought
to exclude Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony based on the allegedly insufficient disclosure.

On December 22, 2017, the Court declined to grant the Defendants' motion to strike Dr.

Fitzhugh' s testimony, but ordered Mr. Hanson to pay the Defendants' fees associated with that
motion. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Wood informed Mr. Hanson about that ruling.

On January 5, 2018, the Defendants filed a Memorandum of Attorney Fees. There is no

evidence in the record that Mr. Wood informed Mr. Hanson about that Memorandum of Attorney
Fees. Thereafter, Mr. Wood did not file any response to the Memorandum of Attorney Fees. There is
no evidence in the record that Mr. Wood consulted with Mr. Hanson about the possibility of filing
such a response or about his failure to do so on Mr. Hanson' s behalf.

Over six months later, on July 13, 2018, Mr. Wood contacted Judge Winmill' s law clerk to
request a hearing on the Memorandum of Attorney Fees. As the basis for that request, he informed
the law clerk ( and opposing counsel) that he did " not recall much of anything in the month of
January 2018" due to the " fog of sedatives and pain medications" he was under for part of his
recovery from knee surgery. The Court declined Mr. Wood' s hearing request and entered a July 19,
2018 Order directing Mr. Hanson to pay $ 1, 834 in attorney' s fees to the Defendants. There is no
evidence in the record that Mr. Wood informed Mr. Hanson about the July 19, 2018 Order. In his
response to Bar Counsel, Mr. Wood appeared to acknowledge that he never informed Mr. Hanson
about that Order.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 32
12/ 12/ 19

On March 22, 2019, the Court entered an Order partially granting the Defendants' request to
limit Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony based on Mr. Wood' s failure to timely disclose additional information
from Dr. Fitzhugh. ' There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Wood promptly informed Mr. Hanson
that the Defendants were seeking to limit Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony or that he timely consulted with
Mr. Hanson about the basis for the Defendants' request.

On March 25, 2019, Mr. Wood sent an email to Mr. Hanson advising that the Court had
hamstrung Dr. Fitzhugh on the scope of his testimony at trial." He reiterated his previous
recommendation that Mr. Hanson try to settle the case.

In his response to Bar Counsel, Mr. Wood maintained that any limitation on Dr. Fitzhugh' s
testimony at trial would not prejudice Mr. Hanson' s case. It is difficult, if not impossible, to know
whether Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony, if not limited, would have been more beneficial at trial or,
importantly, whether the fact that Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony was limited by the Court disadvantaged
Mr. Hanson in any pre- trial settlement negotiations. As Mr. Wood acknowledged, the Court
hamstrung Dr. Fitzhugh" regarding the scope of any testimony. The Court did so because Mr.
Wood did not timely disclose relevant information regarding Dr. Fitzhugh' s opinions. Given these
circumstances, and with specific reference to Mr. Wood' s failure to promptly communicate with Mr.
Hanson about the status of the case regarding Dr. Fitzhugh' s testimony, we find clear and
convincing evidence that Mr. Wood failed to abide by Mr. Hanson' s objectives and consult with Mr.
Hanson as required under LR. P. C. 1. 2( a), failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness as
required under I.R. P. C. 1. 3, and failed to reasonably communicate with Mr. Hanson as required
under LR.P. C. 1. 4.

3) Dismissal of state law claims based on failure to timely post a bond or request a waiver.

Mr. Wood filed Mr. Hanson' s Complaint on September 16, 2016. Neither at that time nor at

any other time over the next four months did he post a bond or request a waiver of the bond required
for Mr. Hanson' s state law claims against the law enforcement officers.

On January 23, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the state law claims against
the law enforcement officers based on Mr. Hanson' s failure to post a bond. Over three weeks later,
on February 16, 2017, Mr. Wood responded by filing Mr. Hanson' s Declaration of Indigence and a
request for a bond waiver. In an August 28, 2017 Memorandum Decision and Order, the Court
denied Mr. Hanson' s request as untimely, noted that the Declaration of Indigence was filed only
after the Defendants raised the issue, and dismissed Mr. Hanson' s state law claims against the law
enforcement officers.

In his response to Bar Counsel, Mr. Wood argued that he did not file the bond waiver request
earlier because, inter alia, there was no " established procedure" to seek such a waiver before filing a
complaint through the federal court' s electronic filing system and the federal courts had
consistently waived" the bond requirement upon proof of indigence after a complaint was filed.
That argument would be far more persuasive had Mr. Wood filed the bond waiver request and Mr.
T. Jason Wood
Scott Hanson
Page 33
12/ 12/ 19

Hanson' s Declaration of Indigence at any time during the over four- month period after the
Complaint was filed or before the Defendants moved to dismiss the relevant claims based on the lack
of the bond payment. No explanation was provided for that delay. The cases cited by Mr. Wood in
support of his belief that the bond requirement would be waived involved different circumstances.

More importantly, his argument was rejected by the presiding judge in Mr. Hanson' s case, Judge
Winmill. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Wood promptly informed Mr. Hanson about
Judge Winmill' s ruling, the basis for that ruling, and the effect that ruling had on Mr. Hanson' s state
law claims against the law enforcement officers. With respect to the bond and dismissal of those
state law claims, we find clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Wood failed to abide by Mr.
Hanson' s objectives and consult with Mr. Hanson as required under LR.P. C. 1. 2( a), failed to act with
reasonable promptness as required under I. R. P. C. 1. 3, and failed to reasonably communicate with
Mr. Hanson as required under I.R. P. C. 1. 4.

Based on the foregoing, we find clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Wood' s conduct in
Mr. Hanson' s case violated I. R. P. C. 1. 2( a), 1. 3, and 1. 4. In determining the appropriate sanction, we
considered the following mitigating factors: ( 1) Mr. Wood' s lack of any prior discipline in over 25
years of practice; ( 2) his cooperation in this investigation; ( 3) his acknowledgement of some of the
misconduct; ( 4) his efforts to revise his practice to prevent a recurrence; and ( 5) his confirmation to
Bar Counsel' s Office that he will pay the fees entered against Mr. Hanson pursuant to the July 19,
2018 Order. Given these circumstances, there is hereby imposed a PRIVATE REPRIMAND
pursuant to Idaho Bar Commission Rule 506( g). A private reprimand becomes a part of the
permanent files of the Idaho State Bar, but remains confidential under Idaho Supreme Court rule.

Either party may seek review of this Bar Counsel disposition by filing a written request for
such review, stating the reasons for the request, with the Clerk of the Professional Conduct Board,
Idaho State Bar, P. O. Box 895, Boise, Idaho 83701, within fourteen ( 14) days of receipt of this
disposition. The Clerk shall send a copy of the request for review to the respondent or grievant.

Thereafter, consistent with Idaho Bar Commission Rule 509, the Chair of the Professional

Conduct Board will appoint a Hearing Committee to review the matter. Within fourteen ( 14) days of
the assignment to a Hearing Committee, the Clerk will notify the grievant, respondent and Bar
Counsel of the assignment. The Clerk will forward a copy of the request for review, together with
the file concerning the matter, to the Hearing Committee, grievant, and the respondent. Consistent
with Rule 509, the Hearing Committee will review the matter upon the record before it, unless either
party requests a hearing. If the party seeking review of this disposition desires such a hearing, he or
she shall so state in the request for review. If the other party desires a hearing, he or she shall make a
request, in writing, to the Clerk of the Professional Conduct Board at the address listed above, within
seven ( 7) days of being served with the request for review.

The Hearing Committee will review the existing record prior to holding a hearing, if one is
requested. All hearings shall be by telephone, unless the Hearing Committee prescribes another
method. If a hearing is held, the parties shall be permitted to file briefs and make oral argument
related to the grievance under review, and the hearing Committee may ask questions regarding the
T. Jason Wood

Scott Hanson
Page 34
12/ 12/ 19

record before it. The Hearing Committee chair may limit the presentation at the hearing, in his or her
sole discretion. All written materials related to the hearing shall be sent to the Clerk, who shall
disseminate them to all parties and to the Bearing Committee.

For matters relating to the time for rendering the decision, service of the decision and the
effect of the Hearing Committee decision, please see Idaho Bar Commission Rule 509. A copy of
that rule is enclosed for your convenience.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Caralee A. Lambert
Assistant Bar Counsel

CAL: kf
Enclosure
 4) Issue an order from among the options listed in Rule concerning the matter, to the Hc2ring Committee, the
Grievant and Tile Respondent.
509( c)( 1- 6); and/ or

5) Take such other steps as are necessary to facilitate the 4) Review by Hearing Committee. - the Hearing Committee
shall review the matter upon the record before it. unless
prompt resolution of the grievance_
tither party requests a hearing. If the pang seeking review
OF the decision desires such a hearing. tie or she shall so
RULE 509. General Procedure for Disciplinary state in the request for review. If the other party desires a
Proceedings hearing, he or she shall make a request, in writing to the
Clerk of the Professional Conduct Board within seven days
a) Gv a l u a tin to Bar Counsel shall evaluate all information and
grevances coming to his or her attention to determine the nature of being served with the request for review. All hearings
ofthe issue Bar Counsel may refer the information or grievance shall be by telephone, unless the Hearing Committee
prescribes another method. The Hearing Committee shall
to another entity if its subject matter falls outside the jurisdiction
of these Rules or the Rules of Professional Conduct. If the review the existing record prior to holding a hearing, if one
information or grievance alleges facts that, if true, would is requested. If a hearing is held, the parties shall be
constitute a violation of these Rules or the Rules of Professional permitted to file briefs and make oral argument related to the
Conduct. Bar Counsel shall conduct an investigation. grievance under review, and the Hearing Committee may
b) Investigation. All investigations shall be conducted by or under ask questions regarding the record before it. The Hearing
the authority and direction of Bar Counsel. Upon the conclusion Committee chair may limit the presentation at the hearing, in
of an investigation, Bar Counsel may: his or her sole discretion. All written materials related to the
1) Disregard or dismiss the matter as unfounded, frivolous or hearing shall be sent to the Clerk, who shall disseminate
beyond the purview of these Rules or the Rules of them to all parties and to the Hearing Committee.
Professional Conduct and discontinue the investigation and 5) Decision. The Hearing Committee. following its review,
proceedings concerning the matter:, or may:

2) fake any of the disciplinary actions provided by Rule A) remand the matter, or any new matter arising lion the
509( c). hearing, to Bar Counsel for further investigation;
B) approve Bar Counsel' s dispositimr
c) Disposition by Bar Counselif, afterdueinvestigation, Bar
Counsel determines that a violation of these Rules or the Rules of C) reject But Counsel' s disposition and dismiss the matter,
Professional Conduct has occurred, Bar Counsel may: D) recommend a modification and remand the matter to
Bar Counsel for disposition; or
1) Issue an informal admonition or private reprimand to the
Respondent; G) recommend the filing offormal Charges.
2) Impose probationas provided by Rule 506( o. either as an 6) Time for Rendering Decision. The Hearing Committee
independent Sanction or in conjunction will) actions taken shall render its decision within 21 days following the date
under subsection ( c)( I ) above, upon which the record is - submitted to the Hearing
Committee or the date of the telephonic hearing ( if any),
3) Impose restitution and/ or costs as provided by Rules 506( i)
whichever is later,
and 0), either as an independent Sarfelion or in conjunction
with actions taken under subsections ( c)( 1) or ( c)( 2) above; 7) Service of Decision. The Hearing Committee chair shall
4) Seek, in appropriate circumstances, transfer to disability enter an appropriate order reflecting the decision of the
inactive status under Rule 515; Hearing Committee and file the same with the Clerk, who
shall then serve the order upon Grievant, Respondent and
5) File Formal Charges, with concurrence of the Board of
Commissioners; and/ or Bar Counsel.

6) Petition for interim suspension, as provided in Rule 510. 8) Effect of Hearing Committee Decision. If the Hearing
Bar Counsel shall not recommend a disposition other than Committee' s decision results in no Sanction being imposed
dismissal without first providing the Respondent with written on the Respondent, its review of Bar Counsel' s disposition
notice of the substance of the matter and affording him or her the shall be Gnat 1f the filing of Formal Charges is
recommended by the Hearing Committee, subsequent
opportunity to respond to the allegations-. Bar Counsel shall also proceedings shall be processed as provided in Rule 511.
provide written notice: to the Grievant regarding the disposition of
the matter stating the reasons for the action taken. 9) Supreme Court Review. It the Hearing Committee' s
decision results in a Sanction being imposed on the
d) Request fair. Review. Either the Grievant or Rpspo'ndent Only
Respondent, either [ he Grievant or Respondent may seek
request review by a hlcariag Commyliitee of Bar. Counsel' s
disposition unclot subsections ( b)( 1); ( c)( 1), ( 2), o4 ( 3) in the_ Supreme Court review of the Hearing Committee' s decision.
A written petition for such review, stating the reasons for the
following manner:
1) Mode and Content of Request. A written roquest for such request, shall be filed with the Supreme, Court, within 21
review, stating [ he reatons for the request, : shall be sent to days of service of the Nearing Committee' s decision. The
petition shall contain it simple slatenlent of the reasons the
the Clerk of the Professional Conduct Board within 14 days
Grievant or Respondent believes that the Hearing
following the receipt of notice by the Respondent or
Grievant tinder subsection ( c) of this Rule. Committee decision is clearly erroneous or arbitrary and
capricious Upon receipt of o petition under this subsection.
2) Service of Request. The Clerk shall send a copy of the
request for review to die Respondent or GrleVmtt. the Supreme Court may. In its sole discretion. Order brafing,
ssigIc Cliir of the allow orad argument or decide the matter upon the petition
3) \
Prolessionsl Conduct Board shall appoint Front among its before I.

approved membership a Hearing Commitice to review the

mailer. Within 14 days of the assignment to it Hearing RULE 510. Interim Suspension
Committee, the Clerkshall notify the Grievant, Respondent a) Grounds. The Supreme Court may enter an order of interim
and Bar Counsel of the assignment Tile Clerk shall ( onward suspension if.
a copy of the request for review, together with the file 1) a Lawyer is convicted ora Serious Crime;