Idaho State Bar reprimands Custer County prosecutor

A public reprimand from the bar is a “written reprimand regarding a lawyer’s professional conduct,” according to the bar association’s rules. “A public reprimand declares the lawyer’s conduct to have been improper but does not limit his or her right to practice law,” the rule states. Public reprimands are published in the bar association’s newsletter and on its website. Oleson will also be assessed the “expenses and costs” of the professional conduct investigation and proceedings.

However, Joseph Pirtle, bar counsel for the Idaho State Bar, said either party can ask to alter or amend the ruling within 14 days of the March 28 decision. The hearing committee members decide whether to take any action in response to any possible request. After that, there is a 21-day period in which either party can file a notice of appeal with the Idaho Supreme Court.

If neither party requests the decision be altered or amended, it becomes final 14 days after March 28, Pirtle said.

The hearing committee found that Oleson violated three rules of professional conduct related to a client he represented in his private practice. They said alleged violations of another six rules didn’t rise to “establish clear and convincing evidence of the allegations.”

In the conclusions of law, the members of the professional conduct board wrote that Oleson violated the bar’s rule regarding a conflict of interest in representing client Jeff Katseanes in a 2015 divorce case and subsequent court proceedings related to spousal support payments to Judy Katseanes that were outlined in their property settlement agreement. Jeff Katseanes “admittedly failed to comply with this provision,” the findings of facts issued by the professional conduct board states. Judy Katseanes filed a civil complaint against Jeff Katseanes in August 2019 for failing to make the required spousal payments. Oleson represented Jeff Katseanes in that matter. According to the findings of facts, Jeff Katseanes “was unable to pay his outstanding balance to Mr. Oleson’s firm” because his wages were being garnished to pay his ex-wife. Judy Katseanes’ Jan. 28, 2020, motion for summary judgment for unpaid spousal support was granted and Jeff Katseanes was ordered to pay her about $106,000. When he didn’t make the payments, in July of that year she filed a motion for entry of a qualified domestic relations order asking the court to make Jeff Katseanes use money from his 401(k) plan to pay her. On Jan. 6, 2021, Judy Katseanes was granted that qualified domestic relations order.

Prior to that QRDO hearing, in December 2020, Jeff Katseanes sent Oleson a letter explaining his “limited financial resources” and told Oleson he could pay Oleson $20,000 if there was a way for Katseanes to access his retirement funds. Jeff Katseanes testified he thought there was a “hold” on his retirement funds and he couldn’t use them to pay Oleson.

Much of the debate revolves around the Jan. 6, 2021, District Court hearing in which Judy Katseanes was granted a QRDO and Jeff Katseanes’ later withdrawal of money from his retirement account he used to pay her, another ex-wife and Oleson’s law firm.

Oleson had asserted that the QRDO was not effective on Jan. 6, 2021, because the judge stated he was “going to grant the motion for entry of a QRDO.” Oleson said it wasn’t granted until the judge signed it on Jan. 27, 2021, and a written order entered. But the judge said his oral order was immediately effective and the Supreme Court agreed with the judge.

Jeff Katseanes testified that “right after” the Jan. 6, 2021, hearing Oleson called him and said there was no hold on the retirement fund and Jeff Katseanes needed to “act quickly and get the money pulled,” to get Oleson paid. Jeff Katseanes said Oleson “did not advise him before he withdrew the retirement funds that the withdrawal could be problematic.” Jeff Katseanes said he withdrew his retirement funds either on Jan. 6 or 7, 2021, so he could pay Oleson. In his testimony, Jeff Katseanes said Oleson “was pretty blunt,” in telling him “to get that money pulled and get (Oleson) paid.” According to the finding of facts, Oleson stated in a Jan. 13, 2021, letter to Jeff Katseanes “hopefully you can get those funds to me ASAP and get me paid off and we can do something else with it.”

Testimony showed that Oleson “did not have personal knowledge when the payment was made to his office,” the findings of fact state.

Also on Jan. 13, 2021, according to testimony from Erin Dupree, an employee with the administrator of Jeff Katseanes’ retirement plan, Oleson told Dupree “that no QRDO would be ordered and she ‘should feel free to distribute the retirement funds’” to Jeff Katseanes. Oleson also told Dupree “no QDRO had been entered at the time,” the findings state. The findings state that Oleson was asked at trial if one of the reasons for his conversation with Dupree on Jan. 13, 2021, was for her to determine the QDRO status “he incredulously testified: ‘Not really.’”

Multiple court hearings have been held in the last four years related to the case, including a January 2023 finding by the Idaho Supreme Court that the “ruling granting the QRDO motion was effective when it was ordered from the bench” two years earlier. The Supreme Court agreed that Jeff Katseanes was in criminal contempt, as he’d been found by a District Court judge, and that the fees Jeff Katseanes had paid Oleson were to be “disgorged.” According to the Cornell Law School, disgorgement “is a remedy requiring a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that illegal or wrongful conduct.” The Supreme Court rejected Oleson’s argument that a judgment wasn’t valid without a court’s written, signed order.

The conclusions of law issued by the Idaho State Bar refer to Oleson’s failure to “put up a defense to the contempt charges” filed against his client, Jeff Kaestenes when addressing the conflict of interest accusation.

“The problem lies in Mr. Oleson’s decision not to file what Mr. Katseanes had provided, even if deficient,” the conclusions state. “The court upon receipt of the filing would have been able to inform Mr. Oleson that his client’s account was lacking in some way but making that filing would have avoided a contempt charge. Once the contempt charge was filed, if not earlier, Mr. Oleson should have notified his client of the conflict of interest that he had and obtained informed consent or withdrawn as counsel. He did neither and Mr. Katseanes went to jail for it.”

The conclusions of law also determine that Oleson violated the bar association’s rule that states “a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.”

The issue concerns Oleson’s instructions to Jeff Katseanes to get his money from his retirement account “fast.”

“Both the written and testimonial evidence shows Mr. Oleson at least expressing some urgency to his client to remove the monies from the retirement account. Any urgency would be odd if Mr. Oleson thought that the order had not yet been ‘entered,’” the conclusions state.

Further, the document states that Oleson “decided not to file the accounting by the deadline, directly disobeying an order from the court. The fact he claims his client told him to do so, even if true, is no safe harbor for ignoring the order of the court.”

The final rule violation the committee found relates to Oleson’s misconduct. The conclusions state he violated the bar’s rule that states “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

“Here he not only provided misguided direction that a QDRO was not entered on January 6, (2021) but he also failed to file the hand-written ‘accounting’ his client had provided to him, then failed to notify him of his conflict of interest in representing him through the contempt proceedings in silence,” the conclusions of law state. “The court was forced to press and press for compliance, necessitating multiple hearings and an unnecessary waste of judicial resources.”