OPC v. Rose
2017 UT 50
| Utah | 2017Background
- Susan Rose, admitted to Utah bar in 1997, faced multiple complaints for conduct in a federal case (Navajo tribal enforcement action) and a Utah state-court family matter; judges in both forums repeatedly described her filings as frivolous, incomprehensible, and dilatory.
- The Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) investigated and filed a formal complaint in Third District Court in December 2007 alleging multiple violations of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct arising from both matters.
- Rose repeatedly missed deadlines, filed numerous repetitive motions, asserted the Fifth Amendment broadly in discovery, and refused to cooperate with discovery and court orders; the district court struck her answer and entered default judgment under Rule 37 for willful, dilatory conduct.
- At the subsequent sanctions hearing Rose largely declined to defend herself, left the hearing early, and presented no mitigating evidence; the district court found multiple rule violations (competence, conflicts, meritorious claims, expediting litigation, communications with represented persons, attacks on judges, and misconduct) and ordered disbarment.
- On appeal Rose primarily challenged Utah’s disciplinary process as unconstitutional (jurisdiction under the Supremacy Clause, res judicata/Article III, due process, and equal protection) rather than directly contesting the factual findings or the sanction; the Utah Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rose) | Defendant's Argument (OPC/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to discipline for conduct in federal/tribal courts (Supremacy Clause) | Utah lacks authority to sanction conduct implicating federal/Navajo sovereignty; Supremacy Clause bars state discipline for those matters | Utah courts have constitutional/statutory authority to regulate attorneys licensed in Utah regardless of where conduct occurred (Rule 8.5(a)) | Court held Utah has jurisdiction to discipline its licensees for out-of-state or federal/tribal practice and rejected Rose’s Supremacy Clause contention |
| Preclusion / Article III / res judicata | Prior federal/tribal decisions (and denials of sanctions) preclude re-litigation or state discipline | State discipline addresses professional conduct and is not barred by Article III or ordinary preclusion principles; Rose failed to show claim/issue preclusion elements | Court held Rose failed to carry burden; res judicata and Article III do not bar state disciplinary action here |
| Equal protection (challenge to Utah Constitution art. VIII §4 delegation) | Delegation of lawyer-discipline authority to the Supreme Court treats lawyers worse than nonlawyers and denies equal protection | Delegation is constitutional; Rose failed to identify a suspect class or fundamental right and provided no legal analysis | Court rejected Rose’s undeveloped equal protection claim for lack of persuasive briefing and merit |
| Due process of disciplinary proceedings (screening panel, notice, procedures, impartial triers) | Discipline system is an "inquisition" lacking safeguards (panel composition, notice of sanction sought, proof standard, impartial adjudicators) | Rules provide notice, opportunity to be heard, screening and review procedures; Rose’s claims inadequately briefed and unsupported by record | Court held Utah’s lawyer-discipline procedures satisfy due process; Rose did not show constitutional violation or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Injured Workers Ass’n of Utah v. State, 374 P.3d 14 (Utah 2016) (discussing Supreme Court authority to govern practice of law)
- In re Discipline of Bates, 391 P.3d 1039 (Utah 2017) (standard of review and independent assessment of discipline)
- In re Discipline of Oliver, 254 P.3d 181 (Utah 2011) (district courts’ jurisdiction over attorney discipline)
- Buckner v. Kennard, 99 P.3d 842 (Utah 2004) (distinguishing claim and issue preclusion doctrines)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection: rational-basis review for non-suspect classifications)
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1821) (federal jurisprudence on obligations to exercise jurisdiction)