OPINION: Note to Idaho’s attorney general — conflict of interest rules are not optional
Attorney General Raul Labrador is having a hard time taking “no” for an answer to the State Land Board’s June 17 decision to terminate his legal services and hire its own legal counsel. It must have been a hurtful blow because the Idaho AG has served as the Land Board’s legal adviser ever since Idaho achieved statehood in 1890. However, the relationship of an attorney to his or her client requires trust and confidence, which apparently was lacking between Labrador and the other four members of that board.
Rather than living with the board’s 4-1 vote to oust him as its attorney, Labrador has doubled down and is trying to force his services upon that agency. The board, using its new attorneys, sought to file a brief to have some input into a case in federal court regarding access to land in the Boise foothills. Much to everyone's surprise, Labrador filed opposition to the board’s brief, claiming he was the only state lawyer who had the authority to represent the board.
The board responded, saying among other things, that Labrador’s unorthodox move was “contrary” to the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, which apply to all Idaho lawyers. Those rules prevent a lawyer from representing a client “if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.” The rules specify that such a conflict can arise “from a lawyer’s own interests.” Labrador’s personal conflicting interest is trying to salve his hurt feelings by forcing the board to hire him back. It is not at all clear how he could fulfill his “duty of undivided loyalty” to the board, and “exercise the utmost good faith” to protect its interests, by depriving it of its say in the federal court case.
Conflicts of interest seem to be a recurrent theme with the attorney general. During his first week in office, Labrador personally dropped a well-founded trespassing charge against Sara Brady, a prominent friend and supporter. The Attorney General’s Office only handles a misdemeanor prosecution when the prosecuting agency has a conflict of interest. In Brady’s case, former AG Lawrence Wasden had agreed to handle the case for that very reason. When Labrador inherited the case, he should have seen his obvious conflict of interest and immediately sent the case back to the prosecuting agency instead of doing his friend a favor.
On two occasions Labrador instituted legal proceedings against client agencies without even giving them advance warning. One proceeding was against the Department of Health and Welfare and several of its employees over a child care grant program. All of the targets were his clients, which constituted a conflict of interest, as well as a breach of his duty to them. A district judge made Labrador withdraw from the case and appoint unconflicted attorneys to handle it. In the other case, which Labrador filed against the Idaho Board of Education, another district judge held that Labrador had violated his duty of trust to the client agency. He was required to withdraw from the case and appoint unconflicted attorneys to proceed with it.
During his tenure as AG, Labrador has engaged in other conflicts of interest of a more significant and troubling nature — giving preference to culture war legislation over constitutional requirements. The Idaho Constitution is the supreme law of Idaho and every Idaho officeholder signs an oath to support that sacred document. That includes defending the Constitution against a conflicting legislative act. The latest instance involves the education tax subsidy law passed by the Legislature as House Bill 93.
The group that filed a lawsuit against the subsidy law Sept. 17 notified Labrador in August of its blatant unconstitutionality and reminded him of his obligation to stand up for the Constitution. He refused to do so, creating a clear conflict of interest between his personal interests and his lawful duty.
Labrador should take a lesson from Lawrence Wasden, who held the AG office before him. When the Legislature passed a law to give a sweetheart deal to those leasing prime state cottage sites, Wasden let it be known that the legislation violated the Constitution. The Land Board is required to get the maximum, long-term rental from those lands for the benefit of public schools. The sweetheart law deprived schools of much-needed financial support. Wasden filed suit to get the law declared unconstitutional and he won that case. I had the privilege of writing the Supreme Court decision declaring the law unconstitutional.
Whether it is acting ethically with state clients or opposing unconstitutional legislative actions, we should expect Idaho’s chief legal officer to stand up for the rule of law. Elected officials who let their personal beliefs or interests take preference over the public interest or ethical rules must be reminded by the voting public that conflict of interest rules are not optional.
• • •
Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017).
LINKS:
June 17 decision: https://www.idl.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/07/061725-fin-minutes-lb.pdf
Labrador filed opposition: https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/09/18/in-court-idaho-attorney-general-fights-land-board-policy-to-stop-using-him-as-its-attorney/
Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct: https://isb.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/IRPC-ADAAcc.pdf
Well-founded trespassing charge: https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article270858062.html
Judge made Labrador withdraw: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article278175082.html
Labrador had violated his duty: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article278578624.html
Filed a lawsuit: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/ISC-53264-2025/2025/091725+Verified+Petition+for+Writ+of+Prohibition+with+Exhibits+A-Q.pdf
The Supreme Court decision: https://fastcase.vlex.com/vid/898566536