Discipline of Alvin Lundgren
2015 UT 58
| Utah | 2015Background
- Alvin R. Lundgren, a 20-year practitioner, held $2,500 of client Janet Best’s workers’ compensation settlement in his client trust account to pay medical bills but failed to do so; Best discovered unpaid bills and complained after repeated attempts to contact Lundgren.
- Lundgren admitted under oath before a Bar screening panel that over several years he had taken multiple clients’ funds from his trust account for personal and business use without authorization.
- After Best’s complaint, Lundgren eventually reimbursed Best and arranged payments to her doctor, but only after the Bar investigation had begun and Best complained; he claimed loss of some accounting records due to a flood/computer crash.
- The Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) filed a formal complaint; the district court granted OPC summary judgment as to violations of Utah Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) and (d) (misappropriation/mishandling of client funds).
- At a sanctions hearing the district court considered mitigating and aggravating factors, found no "truly compelling" mitigation, identified aggravators (dishonesty, pattern of misconduct, experience), and disbarred Lundgren; Lundgren appealed only the sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intentional misappropriation of client funds requires disbarment absent truly compelling mitigation | OPC: Intentional misappropriation presumptively warrants disbarment under Rule 14-605; only truly compelling mitigation can avoid it | Lundgren: Standard is illusory; court should adopt a balancing/rehabilitative approach and consider his repayment and lesser amount taken | Court: Reaffirmed rule: intentional misappropriation leads to presumptive disbarment unless truly compelling mitigation shown; declined to change standard |
| Whether Lundgren presented truly compelling mitigating circumstances | OPC: Repayment and other factors are not truly compelling, especially when restitution was compelled after complaint | Lundgren: Argued lesser harm compared to other cases and that he repaid all amounts | Court: Repayment was not mitigating (it was compelled); comparative severity irrelevant; no truly compelling mitigation shown |
| Whether restitution or remorse mitigates sanction | OPC: Compelled restitution and post-complaint remediation do not mitigate | Lundgren: Restitution and claimed remorse justify lesser sanction | Held: Compelled restitution is not mitigating; timing and circumstances showed lack of genuine remorse |
| Whether any procedural error requires reversal of disbarment | Lundgren: Challenged standard and sanction | OPC: Procedural process appropriate; summary judgment on the rules not challenged on appeal | Held: Court reviewed sanction de novo in disciplinary context and affirmed disbarment; no reversible procedural error identified |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Discipline of Babilis, 951 P.2d 207 (Utah 1997) (adopted rule that intentional misappropriation results in disbarment absent truly compelling mitigation)
- In re Discipline of Ince, 957 P.2d 1233 (Utah 1998) (discusses need for "truly compelling" mitigating circumstances)
- In re Discipline of Ennenga, 37 P.3d 1150 (Utah 2001) (explains that comparative severity to other cases is not a substitute for truly compelling mitigation)
- In re Discipline of Corey, 274 P.3d 972 (Utah 2012) (addresses review standard and mitigation in disciplinary sanctions)
- In re Discipline of Grimes, 297 P.3d 564 (Utah 2012) (characterizes intentional misappropriation as among the most severe misconduct)
- Utah State Bar v. Jardine, 289 P.3d 516 (Utah 2012) (distinguishable mishandling vs. knowing intentional misappropriation)