Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 3-104 (2026)
Practicing without license a contempt — Exception.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Practicing without license a contempt — Exception.
If any person shall practice law or hold himself out as qualified to practice law in this state without having been admitted to practice therein by the Supreme Court and without having paid all license fees now or hereafter prescribed by law for the practice of law he is guilty of contempt both in the Supreme Court and district court for the district in which he shall so practice or hold himself out as qualified to practice. Provided, that any person may appear and act in a magistrate’s division of a district court as representative of any party to a proceeding therein so long as the claim does not total more than $300, and so long as he or his employer has no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation, and that he shall do so without making a charge or collecting a fee therefor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1934–2023 · leading case: State v. Bettwieser, 149 P.3d 857 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Bettwieser, 149 P.3d 857 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “Lay representation under Idaho Code § 3-104 Generally speaking, “a defendant in a criminal prosecution has no constitutional right to be represented at trial by a non-lawyer lay counsel.”
Luck v. Rohel, 518 P.3d 350 (Idaho 2022). “” On April 18, Rohel filed a “motion to strike complaint pursuant to special appearance” which sought to strike the Complaint under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Idaho Code section 3-104. Rohel signed and served her motions on April 12, 2019, but they were not filed with…”
Indian Springs LLC v. Indian Springs Land Inv., LLC, 215 P.3d 457 (Idaho 2009). “Idaho Code § 3-104 sets forth that no person shall practice law in the State of Idaho without first having been admitted to practice by the Idaho Supreme Court.”
In Re Contempt Proceedings Against Matthews, 79 P.2d 535 (Idaho 1938). “Matthews did not practice law or hold himself out as qualified to practice law in the State of Idaho in violation of the provisions of section 3-104, Idaho Code Annotated. “2. “That the said S.”
White v. Idaho Forest Indus., 572 P.2d 887 (Idaho 1977). “The functions engaged in by the Gibbens Company may well be within the exclusive province of licensed attorneys. At oral argument, we were informed by counsel for the Department that the Gibbens Company employee who performed these tasks is not a licensed attorney.”
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Carroll, 220 P.3d 1073 (Idaho 2009). “I.C. §§ 3-104, 3-420. We reiterate our recent holding in Indian Springs that while a person has a right to represent himself or herself pro se, the right does not extend to the representation of other persons or entities.”
Matter of Depew, 560 P.2d 886 (Idaho 1977). “The Committee found that Depew had violated I.C. § 3-104 1 and I.C. § 3-420 2 and also the suspension order of this court.”
Idaho State Bar Ass'n v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 637 P.2d 1168 (Idaho 1981). “” The Idaho State Bar objected in the preliminary stages of this process to the pro *674 posed rule concerning representation of parties before the Commission on the ground that it would allow for the unauthorized practice of law in violation of I.C. § 3-104. 1 See also I.C. § 3…”
In Re Contempt Proceedings of Brainard, 39 P.2d 769 (Idaho 1934). “) Section 3-104 provides: “If any person shall practice law or hold himself out as qualified to practice law in this state without having been admitted to practice therein by the Supreme Court and without having paid all license fees now or hereafter prescribed by law for the…”
Idaho State Bar v. Meservy, 335 P.2d 62 (Idaho 1959). “The drafting of the documents alleged to have been prepared by defendant, or the giving of advice and counsel with respect thereto, by one not a licensed attorney at law, would constitute an unlawful practice of law, whether or not a charge was made therefor, and even though the…”
In Re Farness, 244 B.R. 464 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2000). “§ 3-104[J Id. 7 The UST alleges that Wees engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by assisting the Debtors in making determinations concerning what should be set forth in the filing, specifically in determining and claiming exemptions and deciding how the plan would treat…”
State v. Harrold, 750 P.2d 959 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “Although not rising to the level of a constitutional right, there appears to be a statutory right under I.C. § 3-104 to avail oneself of lay assistance in certain civil small claims actions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.