Office of Professional Conduct v. Dahlquist (In Re Discipline of Dahlquist), 443 P.3d 1205

Charles W. Dahlquist II, defense counsel for IHC, repeatedly violated a trial court’s in limine order by referencing plaintiffs’ collateral source benefits during a 2008 jury trial.
The jury verdict for IHC was affirmed at trial and the case was dismissed in December 2008; the Wilsons appealed.
This court reversed and granted a new trial in July 2012 based in part on Dahlquist’s repeated violations (Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.). The OPC learned of the misconduct from that opinion and opened an investigation the same day.
The Wilsons later sought to file an informal bar complaint and verified it in March 2015; the OPC consolidated that informal complaint with its investigation.
The OPC filed a formal complaint in district court in 2016. Dahlquist moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds under Sup. Ct. R. Prof’l Practice 14-529, and the district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (OPC)	Defendant's Argument (Dahlquist)	Held
Whose “discovery” triggers the 4‑year limitations period under rule 14‑529?	Only OPC discovery should start the clock; the OPC discovered the misconduct in July 2012.	Any person permitted to file a complaint can trigger the clock; discovery occurred at the 2008 trial.	Discovery is triggered when a party with an interest in filing an informal complaint (e.g., the aggrieved party) learns of the misconduct.
What constitutes the commencement of “proceedings under this article”?	“Proceedings” includes OPC investigations; thus proceedings began when OPC opened an investigation in July 2012.	Proceedings commence when an informal complaint is filed under rule 14‑510.	Proceedings commence when an informal complaint is filed and verified under rule 14‑510—not upon OPC investigation.

Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 289 P.3d 369 (Utah 2012) (reversed verdict and granted new trial due to persistent violations of in limine order)
In re Discipline of Welker, 100 P.3d 1197 (Utah 2004) (standard of review for interpreting Rules of Professional Practice)
In re Discipline of Barrett, 391 P.3d 1031 (Utah 2017) (describes unique standard of review and presumption of district court findings)
In re Discipline of Brussow, 286 P.3d 1246 (Utah 2012) (interpretation of court rules according to plain meaning)
Nemelka v. Ethics & Discipline Comm. of the Utah Supreme Court, 212 P.3d 525 (Utah 2009) (use of dictionary and ordinary meaning in rule interpretation)
State v. Rasabout, 356 P.3d 1258 (Utah 2015) (use of legal corpora and databases to define ordinary meaning)
In re Discipline of Sonnenreich, 86 P.3d 712 (Utah 2004) (disciplinary proceeding initiated by filing an informal complaint)
In re Discipline of Pendleton, 11 P.3d 284 (Utah 2000) (typical initiation of disciplinary proceedings by informal complaint)