Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg
299 P.3d 1058
| Utah | 2013Background
- UEP Trust (1942) was created by FLDS Church predecessors, primarily religious and charitable; property was consecrated to the Trust by members.
- 1998 restatement broadened beneficiaries to FLDS Church members and recast the Trust as religious and charitable, with a Holy United Order framework.
- 2004–2005 district court actions led to suspension of UEP trustees and appointment of Bruce Wisan as Special Fiduciary to manage the Trust.
- 2005–2006 district court reform under cy pres significantly altered the Trust’s purposes, invoking secular administration while attempting to honor settlor intent.
- 2008–2009 subpoenas were issued to SCM seeking documents about its prior representation of the UEP Trust; Movants sought to enjoin/limit disclosures and challenged SCM’s continued representation; the district court disqualified SCM, leading to an extraordinary writ petition to review these orders.
- The Utah Supreme Court held that the UEP Trust and the Reformed Trust are not the same client for purposes of the attorney-client privilege, so SCM is not required to disgorge privileged communications or be disqualified from representing Movants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the extraordinary writ is proper to challenge the district court order | SCM/Movants: writ appropriate; lower court abused discretion | Lindberg: writ not appropriate; other relief available | Yes; writ appropriate for abuse of discretion and irreparable harm concerns |
| Whether the Reformed Trust is the same client as the UEP Trust for privilege purposes | Reformed Trust is the same client as UEP Trust | Reformed Trust is a different entity from UEP Trust | No; not the same client for privilege purposes |
| Whether SCM must disgorge privileged communications to the Reformed Trust | SCM should disgorge to the Reformed Trust as successor | Privilege cannot pass to a different entity; confidential materials protected | No; district court erred in ordering disgorgement |
| Whether SCM is disqualified from representing parties adverse to the Reformed Trust | SCM should be disqualified due to former representation | Not disqualified because no ongoing or substantially related adverse representation | No; SCM not disqualified |
Key Cases Cited
- Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Lindberg, 2010 UT 51 (Utah Supreme Court (2010)) (estate-valued basis for cy pres and laches considerations; reformation context)
- Moeller v. Superior Court, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1997) (treats successor trustee's privilege assertion under privilege rules when administering trust)
- Doe v. Maret, 1999 UT 74 (Utah Supreme Court (1999)) (attorney-client privilege promotes candor; rule 504 definitions)