In the Matter of the Discipline of Nathan N. Jardine, 2015 UT 51

Background

Nathan N. Jardine was suspended from practicing law (initially three years, reduced to 18 months by this Court) and later petitioned for reinstatement under Sup. Ct. R. Prof’l Practice 14-525.
While suspended, Jardine continued to work on a client's personal-injury matter from his Utah office, exchanged advice via texts, and sent a demand letter on his law letterhead without disclosing his suspension.
The district court denied reinstatement, finding Jardine violated prior disciplinary orders/unauthorized practice, failed to show requisite honesty and integrity, did not keep current in the law, failed to pass the MPRE, and had not reimbursed the Client Security Fund $1,000.
On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed denial of reinstatement based on four independent defects: unauthorized practice (violation of prior order), insufficient evidence of honesty/integrity, failure to pass the MPRE without good reason, and failure to keep informed of legal developments.
The Court reversed the portion of the district court’s order requiring repayment of $1,000 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection because this Fund payment could not be tied to proven misconduct by Jardine.
The Court directed the rules committee to consider clarifying Rule 14-525(e)(4) (what evidence suffices to show requisite honesty and integrity).

Issues

Issue	Jardine's Argument	OPC/District Court Argument	Held
Whether Jardine violated his suspension/prior disciplinary order by practicing law in Utah	Jardine implied his work related to an Idaho matter and was performed through his brother; claimed not practicing in Utah	Jardine worked from his Utah office, sent letters from a Utah address, and gave legal advice from Utah — thus unauthorized practice	Court: Violated prior order; his activities constituted practicing law in Utah, so failed 14-525(e)(1)
Whether Jardine demonstrated requisite honesty and integrity to practice law	Jardine offered testimony from a paralegal and his sister attesting to his character; cited efforts to address debts	OPC relied on substantial unresolved debts (tax lien, child support, civil judgment) and lack of objective corroborating testimony	Court: Jardine failed to meet burden; family/co-worker testimony insufficient; denied reinstatement under 14-525(e)(4)
Whether Jardine kept informed about recent legal developments during suspension	Jardine said he worked as a paralegal and litigated his own disciplinary appeal (substantive briefing)	OPC: Paralegal work and self-representation do not substitute for demonstrated continuing legal education or comparable efforts	Court: Paralegal work and self-representation insufficient; failed 14-525(e)(5)
Whether Jardine had good and sufficient reason for not passing the MPRE	Jardine argued his extensive appellate briefing on ethics shows competency and should excuse MPRE	OPC: Prior litigation is not a substitute; disciplinary candidates should still pass MPRE	Court: No good and sufficient reason; must pass MPRE per 14-525(e)(6)

Key Cases Cited

In re Discipline of Jardine, 289 P.3d 516 (Utah 2012) (prior disciplinary opinion reducing suspension and addressing underlying misconduct)
In re Discipline of Ince, 957 P.2d 1233 (Utah 1998) (standard of review in attorney discipline cases)
Utah State Bar v. Summerhayes & Hayden, 905 P.2d 867 (Utah 1995) (definition and scope of the practice of law)
Zions First Nat’l Bank v. Nat’l Am. Title Ins. Co., 749 P.2d 651 (Utah 1988) (Rule 52 findings and labels not determinative)
State ex rel. S.T. v. State, 928 P.2d 393 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (trial court need not recite every intermediate step in reasoning)
Long v. Ethics & Discipline Comm. of the Utah Supreme Court, 256 P.3d 206 (Utah 2011) (conclusory findings in attorney-discipline context and appellate review)
Jex v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 306 P.3d 799 (Utah 2013) (characterization of findings of fact vs. conclusions of law not determinative)