Utah State Bar v. Jardine
2012 UT 67
| Utah | 2012Background
- The Utah Supreme Court reduced Jardine's suspension from three years to eighteen months in this disciplinary appeal.
- OPC alleged misconduct across four clients: Gardner, Mecham, Loomis, and Woods.
- Gardner matter involved a $5,000 nonrefundable retainer, delays, and mismanagement of assets after Gardner became incompetent.
- Mecham matter involved a $10,000 nonrefundable retainer, funds deposited to operating account, no monthly billing, and confidentiality concerns.
- Loomis matter alleged lack of competence, diligence, and poor communication over six years in a civil rights case.
- Woods matter concerned a missed hearing due to secretary's miscommunication, with accusations of prejudice to the administration of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Gardner fee excessive under Rule 1.5? | OPC: fee excessive given minimal services and late start. | Jardine: fixed-fee justified by nonrefundable retainer and peace-of-mind benefit. | Fee excessive; Rule 1.5 violated. |
| Did Jardine violate Rule 1.15 by safekeeping and timing of retainer funds (Gardner/Mecham)? | Funds deposited before earned; improper commingling. | Opinion 186 allowed fixed-fee scenarios; sometimes funds are earned on acceptance. | Violations established; funds not earned before withdrawal; Rule 1.15 violated. |
| Did Jardine's Gardner engagement violate Rule 1.2 (scope of representation)? | No clear scope; failed to define objectives and conduct. | Informal arrangement; scope inferred from communications; no misrepresentation. | Rule 1.2 violated. |
| Did Jardine violate Rule 1.3 (diligence) in Loomis matter? | Little action over six years; failed to progress case. | Limited by scope; some filings but insufficient effort alleged. | Rule 1.3 violated. |
| Did Jardine violate Rule 1.4 (communication) in Loomis matter? | Persistently failed to inform client of status. | Poor communication result of broader neglect; not excused but not separate violation. | Rule 1.4 violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Discipline of Babilis, 951 P.2d 207 (Utah 1997) (discipline framework and factors for sanctioning lawyers)
- Askew v. Hardman, 918 P.2d 469 (Utah 1996) (considerations of professional conduct and discipline)
- In re Discipline of Brussow, 286 P.3d 1246 (Utah 2012) (recent disciplinary standards and application)