Discipline of Gilbert v. Utah Down Syndrome Foundation, Inc., 2012 UT 81

Gilbert sought to implead the Foundation in an attorney discipline proceeding.
OPC began disciplinary action; district court allowed impleader; Foundation moved for summary judgment alleging improper impleader and lack of res judicata effect.
Foundation obtained interlocutory review of the district court’s order denying its motion.
Foundation and chapters Up With Downs and Uptown Downs had prior related litigation over control and funds; May 3, 2007 order resolved some disputes.
Gilbert received $30,000 in attorney fees from chapter accounts; Foundation sought disgorgement and fees; district court awarded Foundation fees and disgorgement.
Court held that Standards do not permit collateral matters in attorney discipline proceedings and impleader was improper; case remanded for independent action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is impleader proper in attorney discipline proceedings?	Gilbert: impleader allowed to resolve collateral issues.	Foundation: impleader not allowed under Standards; collateral matters barred.	Impleader is never proper in discipline proceedings.
If impleader is improper, may Gilbert pursue third-party claims in an independent action?	Gilbert seeks resolution of status of entities and fees via third-party action.	Standards require separate action for collateral disputes;	Gilbert may pursue third-party claims in an independent action; stay possible under Rule 14-517(d).

In re McCune, 717 P.2d 701 (Utah 1986) (origin of attorney discipline authority in Utah)
In re Knowlton, 800 P.2d 806 (Utah 1990) (Board tasked with investigating and disciplining; authority discussion)
In re Cassity, 875 P.2d 548 (Utah 1994) (Standards framework adopted; discipline proceedings centralized)
In re Babilis, 951 P.2d 207 (Utah 1997) (Standards moved formal bar complaints to district courts)
In re Strong, 616 P.2d 583 (Utah 1980) (discipline proceedings are not ordinary legal actions)