325 P.3d 104
Utah2014Background
- Client Thomas Broude (criminal defendant) was referred to attorney Jere Reneer by Utah Legal Group (ULG), a nonlawyer marketing company; Broude’s mother, Judy Carey, contracted with ULG and paid ULG fees.
- Reneer agreed to represent Broude for a flat fee from ULG/Carey; Broude and Carey did not sign a separate fee agreement with Reneer and Reneer did not know the full amount Carey paid ULG.
- Reneer provided representation, negotiated plea outcomes that reduced charges and resulted in a suspended sentence; Carey was dissatisfied and complained to the Utah State Bar, misidentifying Reneer as part of ULG.
- The Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) alleged violations of Utah Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.5(b), 1.8(f) (third-party payment without client informed consent), 5.4(a), and 8.4(a); the screening panel found violations of 1.8(f) and 8.4(a) and recommended a private admonition.
- The discipline committee affirmed the admonition based on the screening record; Reneer appealed to the Utah Supreme Court arguing insufficient evidence of lack of informed consent and that 8.4(a) cannot be an independent ground for discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OPC/Carey) | Defendant's Argument (Reneer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reneer violated Rule 1.8(f) by accepting third-party payment without informed consent | Reneer did not obtain informed consent from Broude for payments made by Carey/ULG | No evidence the OPC met its burden to prove lack of informed consent; oral consent permissible and Broude did not testify | Court: OPC failed to produce substantial evidence that Reneer lacked Broude’s informed consent; reversal |
| Whether a Rule 8.4(a) charge may be sustained independently when based solely on another rule violation | OPC charged 8.4(a) as separate misconduct derived from alleged 1.8(f) breach | Rule 8.4(a) cannot be charged separately when based solely on violation of another Rule | Court: 8.4(a) may not stand independently here; cannot be separate basis for discipline |
Key Cases Cited
- Becker v. Sunset City, 309 P.3d 223 (Utah 2013) (defines substantial-evidence standard)
- Utah State Bar v. Jardine (In re Discipline of Jardine), 289 P.3d 516 (Utah 2012) (less-deferential review in attorney discipline; court may draw independent inferences)
- In re Discipline of Tanner, 960 P.2d 399 (Utah 1998) (attorney-discipline review is distinct from ordinary judicial review)
- Margulies ex rel. Margulies v. Upchurch, 696 P.2d 1195 (Utah 1985) (scope of required explanation for informed consent)
- State v. Manatau, 322 P.3d 739 (Utah 2014) (discipline committee appellate-role precedent)