Tag: Utah Rules of Professional Conduct
When trading legal services for construction work will get you suspended
In a recent attorney discipline case, the question of the appropriate sanction for an attorney who traded his legal services for construction work on his home and yard came before the Utah Supreme Court. In In the Matter of Discipline of Joseph P. Barrett, an attorney was suspended from the practice of for law for 150 days for misappropriating firm funds arising from two situations where the attorney traded legal services for construction on his home and yard. On appeal, […]
Accepting disputed funds can get you disbarred
The question of whether an attorney may accept payment of his or her fees from disputed funds recently came before the Utah Supreme Court. The attorney at issue had been disbarred from the practice of law for accepting payment of his fees from funds that he knew or should have known were the subject of litigation and were paid from bank accounts that were the subject of an injunction. Attorney Challenges Disbarment Over Accepting Disputed Funds In In the Matter […]
Burden of proof in attorney discipline cases
In a recent attorney discipline case before the Utah Supreme Court, the disciplined attorney argued that the proper burden of proof for attorney disciplinary proceedings involving “criminal acts” is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the Supreme Courts rejected the attorney’s invitation, holding that the burden of proof applicable to attorney discipline proceedings, whether or not they involve claims of criminal acts, under the Utah Rules of Lawyer Discipline is proof “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Disciplined Attorney Charged […]
Prosecutor’s six month suspension upheld
In a recent case before the Utah Supreme Court, the court affirmed a six month suspension from the practice of law of a former Davis County prosecutor for violation of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the prosecutor was alleged to have violated Rule 3.3 and Rule 3.8, which set forth an attorney’s duty of candor toward a tribunal and a prosecutor’s duty to timely disclose exculpatory evidence or information to a defendant, respectively. While the Utah Supreme Court […]
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 […]
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 […]
Utah Supreme Court Reaffirms that Attorneys Who Steal From their Clients will be Disbarred.
In In the Matter of the Discipline of Alvin R. Lundgren, 2015 UT 58, the attorney settled a workers’ compensation claim on behalf of his client.