Ciardi v. Office of Professional Conduct
379 P.3d 1287
Utah2016Background
- In 2011, attorney John L. Ciardi disrupted a Fifth District Court proceeding after missing his scheduled appearance: he interrupted the court, refused to sit when ordered, was escorted out by bailiffs, and continued to yell disparaging remarks about the judge and courthouse staff. He was cited for disorderly conduct and refusing a lawful order and entered an Alford plea to disorderly conduct (reduced to an infraction).
- The Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) received a complaint; a Utah Supreme Court Ethics & Discipline screening panel held hearings (with Mr. Ciardi participating telephonically) during which he repeatedly interrupted witnesses and made disparaging remarks about judges, the panel, and the proceedings.
- The screening panel directed OPC to file a formal complaint in district court alleging violations of Utah Rules of Professional Conduct (tribunal disruption and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice): rules 3.5(d) and 8.4(d) (the opinion also references rule 8.5(d) terminology).
- Mr. Ciardi moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue for the screening panel hearing, alleging conspiracy and misconduct by panel members and OPC; the district court denied the motion. After the denial, Mr. Ciardi threatened participants, refused further participation, and hung up during a telephonic hearing.
- The district court found violations of rules 3.5(d) and 8.4(d), identified aggravating factors (pattern of misconduct, lack of remorse, extensive experience), found no mitigating factors (he did not participate), and disbarred Mr. Ciardi. He appealed, contesting jurisdiction and the sanction.
- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the findings of misconduct but reversed the disbarment and substituted a two-year suspension (running from the trial court’s order), concluding suspension — not disbarment — is the presumptive sanction and the aggravating factors did not justify increasing discipline to disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ciardi) | Defendant's Argument (OPC/district court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue/jurisdiction over screening panel hearing | Venue was improper and district court lacked jurisdiction | District court and OPC contended venue and jurisdiction were proper; screening panel actions valid | Court held Ciardi waived timely venue challenge and district court had jurisdiction |
| Adequacy of briefing/preservation of dismissal arguments | Panel misconduct and procedural defects required dismissal; alleged OPC/panel wrongdoing | OPC argued issues were inadequately preserved/briefed and proceedings were proper | Court declined to consider many dismissal-based allegations as inadequately briefed/preserved |
| Rule violations (tribunal disruption; prejudicial conduct) | Ciardi disputed charges and sought dismissal | OPC alleged violations of rules 3.5(d) and 8.4(d) based on courthouse and screening-panel conduct | Court affirmed findings that Ciardi violated the professional conduct rules |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment v. suspension) | Disbarment was excessive; sought reversal of disbarment | District court imposed disbarment due to multiple aggravating factors and lack of mitigation | Court reversed disbarment, holding presumptive sanction is suspension; imposed two-year suspension instead |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cram, 46 P.3d 280 (Utah 2002) (waiver principle for failure to raise claims timely)
- Bowen v. Utah State Bar, 177 P.3d 611 (Utah 2008) (waiver of procedural objections to screening panel when raised too late)
- In re Discipline of Jardine, 289 P.3d 516 (Utah 2012) (Utah Supreme Court responsibility for proportionality in attorney discipline)
- Johnson v. Office of Professional Conduct, 342 P.3d 280 (Utah 2014) (due process and review standards in attorney discipline)
- In re Discipline of Babilis, 951 P.2d 207 (Utah 1997) (discussion of presumptive sanctions for tribunal-disruptive conduct)
- People v. Brennan, 240 P.3d 887 (Colo. 2010) (suspension for repeated tribunal disruption and prejudicial conduct)
- In re Greenburg, 9 So.3d 802 (La. 2009) (six-month suspension for courtroom altercation)
- Hancock v. Bd. of Prof. Responsibility, 447 S.W.3d 844 (Tenn. 2014) (thirty-day suspension for abusive communications toward a judge)
- In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1968) (due process limits on disciplining based on uncharged conduct)