Snow v. Hon. Lindberg
299 P.3d 1058
Utah2013Background
- UEP Trust founded 1942 by FLDS predecessors as religious charitable trust; 1998 restatement broadened beneficiaries; district court reformed Trust via cy pres in 2006 to secular, neutral administration; Special Fiduciary appointed to manage Trust; SCM previously represented UEP Trust and advised on reform; subsequently, Colorado-like dispute over privileged communications and disqualification arose when movants sought to stop Berry Knoll Farm sale and challenge Trust administration.
- Trust documents conditioned membership on adherence to FLDS principles and Priesthood leadership; reformation shifted purpose away from FLDS religious objectives to neutral, secular administration; reformation altered the Trust’s identity such that the Reformed Trust is argued by the majority not the same client as the UEP Trust; the Special Fiduciary sought access to privileged documents and potential disqualification of SCM; petitioners sought extraordinary relief in this non-party posture.
- SCM objected to disclosure of privileged materials and argued the Reformed Trust and UEP Trust are distinct entities; the district court ordered disclosure and disqualified SCM; court granted petitions for extraordinary relief to review these actions.
- Movants argued that the Reformed Trust is not the same client, so privilege and disqualification should follow the UEP Trust; Lindberg rejected that argument for different client identity; the central question turned on whether the Trusts are the same entity for privilege and disqualification purposes.
- Court’s ultimate holding: UEP Trust and Reformed Trust are not the same client for privilege purposes, so SCM does not owe privilege disclosure; however, the court also holds that SCM is not barred from representing Movants against the Reformed Trust in certain related matters; the petition for extraordinary relief is granted in part to review those orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition for extraordinary relief was proper to challenge the district court’s order | SCM argues there was executive abuse of discretion | Lindberg contends ordinary review suffices | Yes, petition proper as extraordinary relief |
| Whether SCM must disgorge privileged communications to the Reformed Trust | SCM asserts no duty to disclose since Reformed Trust is not the same client | Lindberg/ district court require disclosure under privilege rules | No, district court erred in ordering disclosure |
| Whether SCM can represent parties adverse to the Reformed Trust | SCM was former counsel to UEP Trust; risks conflict | Reformed Trust is separate; no current conflict | SCM not disqualified from representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Lindberg, 2010 UT 51 (Utah Supreme Court, 2010) (reformation laches and finality of prior modification discussed)
- Burns v. Boyden, 2006 UT 14 (Utah Supreme Court, 2006) (privilege and evidentiary issues governed by rule 504/1.6 standards)
- Cheves v. Williams, 1999 UT 86 (Utah Supreme Court, 1999) (disqualification standard for attorney conflicts maintained)