Christensen & Jensen | 257 East 200 South, Ste 1100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111


Blog Posts

Lauer v. Credit Control Services Lawsuit

Bad faith motion for attorney fees denied in Lauer v. Credit Control Services

In a recent decision, a Utah federal district judge denied a defendant’s bad faith motion for attorney fees arising out of claims brought by the plaintiff.  In Lauer v. Credit Control Services, the court was asked to determine whether the plaintiff filed his claims in bad faith, as well as whether defendant was entitled to attorney fees under either 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1927.  Ultimately, the court ruled that “[b]ecause the entirety of [plaintiff’s] action was […]

Adolphus Nickleberry Court Case

Office of the United States Attorney rebuffed by Judge Parrish over request to retract written criticism of prosecutor

A recent article from City Weekly reported on a request from the Office of the United States Attorney to a federal judge to withdraw her written criticism from her decision on a motion to suppress.  A docket entry from March 4, 2016 in one of federal court Judge Jill Parrish’s cases reveals that Judge Parrish met in chambers with David Backman, deputy chief of the Office of the United States Attorney for Utah’s criminal division, and a prosecutor Backman supervises, Jacob […]

Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee Lawsuits

EAOC advises on former client consent

From time to time, the Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee (“EAOC”) of the Utah State Bar issues Advisory Opinions concerning a host of potential lawyer liability issues, including written consent which served as the backdrop for the EAOC’s first advisory opinion in 2016.  According to the Bar’s website, the EAOC is made up of active members of the Bar.  The EAOC Chair and a member of the judiciary are appointed by the Bar’s President, and the remaining members of the EAOC […]

Caesars Entertainment’s Lawsuit

Conflict of interest missed by attorney

An attorney dually representing Caesars Entertainment’s operating unit and its private equity owner Apollo Global Management LLC created a conflict of interest during the time the attorney’s firm was working on a number of controversial transactions involving the casino conglomerate.  The findings regarding the conflict of interest were detailed in a report prepared by a Chapter 11 bankruptcy examiner tasked with investigating potential claims Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. (“CEOC”) creditors may have made against its parent company, Caesars Entertainment Corp. […]

Palacino v. Beech Mountain Resort Inc Lawsuit

Sanctions for attorneys who fail to investigate insurance

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, a party is required to include as part of its initial disclosures “any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.”  If a party fails to disclose the existence of an insurance policy under Rule 26, then a court may sanction the party and/or its attorney pursuant […]

Hunt v. Schauerhamer Case

Court grants request to enforce settlement agreement in Hunt v. Schauerhamer, et al.

In a recent posting, Christensen & Jensen (“C&J”) wrote about a Utah District Court decision that recognized an attorney’s authority to enforce a finalized, yet unsigned, settlement agreement.  In another recent case regarding an accepted settlement agreement, a Utah District Court was saddled with determining whether to grant or deny Defendants’ request to enforce a settlement agreement and Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees. In Hunt v. Schauerhamer, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement, holding that […]

Houweling’s Nurseries Oxnard, Inc. v. Robertson Case

Deposition subpoena compelling lawyer as a witness

Generally, a party’s lawyer is not called as a witness in a lawsuit.  However, where a law firm is involved in communications or otherwise with an opposing party prior to the lawsuit, then a lawyer might be served with a deposition subpoena compelling their testimony regarding their involvement with the opposing party.  Even still, questions regarding attorney-client privilege and attorney work product may arise during the deposition, oftentimes resulting in a motion to modify the deposition subpoena beforehand. Law Firm Communicated […]

garnishment reversal cases

When filing a writ of garnishment, make sure you have the right debtor

A routine part of debt collection often involves an attorney filing a writ of garnishment with a court seeking to have a debtor’s wages withheld to pay an outstanding debt.  However, if the attorney does not perform his or her due diligence in determining the true identity of the debtor, then the attorney may face a lawsuit. Writ of Garnishment Wrongly Lists Plaintiff as Debtor A Utah District Judge recently granted a plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment arising out […]

Applied Asphalt Techs. v. Sam B. Corp., et al

Disqualification and prospective clients under rule 1.18

In Applied Asphalt Techs. v. Sam B. Corp., et al., the plaintiff moved for disqualification of opposing counsel and his firm, as well as the associated counsel’s firm.   Plaintiff stated as basis for disqualification the fact that opposing counsel learned sensitive information about plaintiff’s case when members of Ned B. Mitchell Inc. (“NBMI”) met with opposing counsel to discuss possibly filing a lawsuit against defendants on behalf of NBMI.  Plaintiff also argued that it obtained NBMI’s attorney-client privilege when it […]

What Constitutes an Invalid Fee Agreement?

What Constitutes an Invalid Fee Agreement?

In a recent case before the Utah Supreme Court, the Court was faced with determining whether an appellant was entitled to attorney fees and whether her counsel’s fee agreement was valid.  In, Dahl v. Dahl, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was not entitled to attorney fees.  Initially, the Supreme Court denied the appellant’s request for attorney fess on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to an award of fees because she failed to demonstrate her financial […]