Pyper v. Bond

failed to meet his burden the defendant summary judgment put forth sufficient

on is to court has done What

evidence. legal into

effectively simple issue transform on reason fact. A test based question test, objective but be an

ableness should subjec majority apply seems

instead subjective nature of this Given the

tive test. decision, imagine any set it is difficult judge to find not allow

facts that would cases. of material fact similar issue

some anything but ra basis" test

The "rational

tional, further confusion will lead to future, appellate at the trial and both

level.

2011 UT 45 of Mollie PYPER and Estate

David Pyper, Plaintiffs

Maxine

Respondents, Dorius, BOND, Dale M. C.

Justin D. Defendants

Alison

Petitioners.

No. 20091025. of Utah.

Supreme Court

July DURRANT,

Associate Chief Justice opinionof the Court:

INTRODUCTION granted 11 We certiorari this case to appeals determine whether the court of erred application its construction and setting standard for aside a sheriff's sale. question, To resolve this we must address First, two distinct issues. we must decide appeals whether the court of erred in con- cluding gross inadequacy to- gether slight cireumstances of unfair- may justify setting ness aside a sheriff's sale. Second, agree if appeals' with the court of construction of the standard for a sheriff's we must determine whether the court holding erred in that the slight facts this case involved cireum- stances of unfairness.

12 We hold the court of did concluding not err in gross inadequacy price together slight cireumstances of may justify setting aside a sher- iff's sale. showing This is because a of both cireum- gives presump- stances of unfairness rise to a fraud, which, rebutted, may tion of unless compelling constitute cireumstance justifies setting aside a sheriff's sale We further hold that the court of did not affirming err in the district court's conclusion Appellant's created, least, that conduct circumstances of unfairness. We therefore affirm deci- sion.

BACKGROUND T3 In Pyper David hired Justin attorney, an represent him in a probate time, matter. At the Mr. Bond was employed by Dorius, Bond, the law firm of (the Reyes, and Linares Law Firm or the Firm). charged The Law Firm $9,064.82 attorney fees for Mr. Bond's of Mr. Despite sever- Bryan Provo, Quesenberry, J. plain- Firm, requests by al failed to tiffs. pay these fees. {4 Reyes, Brigham City, Jennifer D. for de- Firm subsequently The Law sued fendants. Pyper in payment an effort to obtain May attorney repre- 19 On the district court attorney fees. senting contacted Mr. Dortus and Law Firm's favor judgment in the entered $10,577.23. satisfy this payoff amount. Mr. Dorius requested To amount of attorney promised that he would against a filed a lien judgment, Mr. Bond him an amount the end of get back to At the the Pyper. Mr. time owned house week, Mr. Dorius did not do so. the but filed, an house had estimated the lien of un- $125,000. approximately After two more weeks approximately value calls, attorney phone Pyper's Mr. answered 2006, properly noticed T5 In November Py- regarding Dorius a letter Mr. sent Mr. Pyper's held at which Mr. sale was sheriff's judgment against per's satisfy desire to the the Mr. Bond was home was auctioned. property. his An attor- him and to redeem purchased Mr. the sale. Mr. Bond bidder at responded Firm ney representing the Law with a bid of Pyper's $329. home Pyper Mr. that his the letter and informed expired. had 20, 2007, Pyper Mr. called the April 1 6 On redemption his desire re- expressed learning and 110 After the Law Firm call, phone During expired, Pyper petition the Mr. filed a property. his had deem seeking him the Firm to district court to set aside the Pyper provide Mr. asked the amount. An judgment payoff lien 2008, awith property. In sheriff's sale of his June that an the district court held a Pyper the Firm told Mr. employee of hearing peti- on the Bond, tion, Dorius, call, Mr. Mr. and but no one which attorney would return his Mr.Pyper. contacted Pyper Mr. testified. Sometime after hearing, the district court issued a memoran- Law April Pyper called the 17 On it dum decision which concluded that the Dorius, spoke with Dale again Firm and property price sale of Mr. Bond's was so During Firm. this conversa- attorney at the "grossly inadequate" as to the con- "shock{ ] tion, Dorius that he Pyper told Mr. impartial of an mind." The district science judgment against him satisfy wanted that Mr. Bond court also concluded $8,500 pay to do so. Mr. and offered to "slight to at Dorius's conduct amounted least needed to talk to Dorius stated he circumstances of unfairness" to Mr. offer, but no one at the Firm Bond about the conclusions, court Based on these the district Pyper with an answer. contacted Mr. ever Pyper's the sheriffs sale of Mr. set aside Dorius, Mr. his with Mr. After conversation property. every day Firm for the Pyper called the Law "[ (collectively, Mr. Bond and Dorius twenty-eight days but was unable to next timely appealed Appellants) Dorius. speak with Mr. Bond or Mr. Appeals. court's decision to the Utah Court 8, 2007, May 180-day appeals or about 18 On The court of affirmed proper- period in which a debtor redeem to set aside the sheriffs district court's decision doing, sal e.2 In so expired. Shortly ty at a sale sold sheriff's thereafter, Pyper's agreed home was with the district court's the deed to Mr. noted that May that the facts of the case involved to Mr. On conclusion transferred Bond. and, least, both Pyper spoke with Mr. Bond about satis- Specifi judgment against him and informed cireumstances of unfairness.3 fying the money cally, court of concluded that the that he had the to do so. Mr. Bond represented, Pyper "words and actions Bond told Mr. that he needed to implicitly, going were the issue and at least speak with Mr. Dorius about redemption process" participate call Mr. back. No one that he would act in accordance that it was "their failure to call. Mr. con- returned Mr. justified] with this calling Mr. Bond and Mr. Dorius on a tinued warranting finding of unfairness district court's near-daily basis for the next two weeks. Id.116. UT 1. See , Id.120.

57g section 78B-6-906 of the That Utah Code.7 Finally, lief"4 re explained findings that the district court's section states that "[slales of real estate un great both judgments mortgages der of foreclosure of subject redemption." and liens are cireumstances of unfairness had "vest[ed] authority district court with the to set aside procedures exercising right to re Pyper's property] sale [sheriffs] [of Mr. demption are set out in rule 69C of the Utah prior precedents." under part, Rules Civil Procedure.9 relevant provides this person seeking rule that a [ 12 Mr. Bond Mr. Doritus then filed a through redeem sold a sheriff's sale certiorari, petition granted. which we On pay must the amount of the bid within siz certiorari, argue Mr. Bond and Mr. Dorius months after the sale.10 that decision should be reversed because it conflictswith this court's instances, 115 In compli most "strict

precedent concerning the for standard set- redemption ance with the period six-month is ting jurisdic- aside a sheriff's sale. We have 11 ... required." But in appeal pursuant tion to hear this some cireumstances section 78A-3-102(8)(a) sitting-in equity may of the Utah Code. "a court extend a re demption period or set a aside sheriff's sale expired. period redemption" after for has STANDARDOF REVIEW instance, For we have indicated that 12 certiorari, T18 "On we review the may a court set aside a sheriff's sale where decision of the court of for correct (1) grossly debtor's is sold at a ness, giving no deference to its conclusions of (2) inadequate price irregu there were 6 law." during larities the sale that contributed to inadequacy price or cireumstances of ANALYSIS redemption unfairness by party conduct of the benefitted I. THE COURT OF DID APPEALS NOT by the sale.13 operate These factors on a ERR IN ITS CONSTRUCTION OF Thus, sliding seale. greater dispro- THE STANDARD FOR SETTING portionality price, the less unfairness or A ASIDE SALE SHERIFF'S irregularities fewer party must demon mayjustifiably strate beforea court extenda 114 right redemption from a statutory right provided sheriff's sale is a redemption period or set aside a sheriff's (1936) ("It added). quite generally (emphases is 4. held that substantial Id. 118 fraud, mistake, inadequacy price, coupled dealing justify or other unfair 5. Id. "420. sufficient equity upon timely court of motion to set aside 6. White, State v. 2011 resale."); ¶ 14, UT 251 P.3d 21, 820. Young the sale and order a v. Schroe der, 155, 252, (Utah 10 Utah P. 37 254 Terr. Urag Cope (2008). § 7. 1894); Marvel, Annotation, Amn. 78B-6-906 see also C. Charles Inadequacy Setting Price as Basis Aside 73B-6-906(1). Sale, § 8. Id. Execution or 5 ALRAth Sheriff's (2011) ("Although infrequently it is held that a Urag 9. See R. Civ. P. 69C. We grossly note that Utah inadequate price justifies setting itself by Rules of Civil Procedure were enacted this recog aside an execution all courts virtually by Legislature. court and not the Utah inadequacy price, nize degree, that in some combined some form of other circum stances, 10. See id. especially those indicative of fraud or part purchaser, unfairness on the of the or mis take, justify setting .(Utah does aside of an execution Lewis, Huston v. 531, 818 P.2d sale, or, 1991). happens, justifies as it sometimes allow ing redemption property."). late We have recognized also other circumstances Id. justify setting aside a sheriff's sale such as See, Dowse, 283, e.g., Pender v. 1 Utah 2d "fraud, accident, mistake, or waiver." J.A. Mol 644, (1954); Int'l, 1122, P.2d 647-48 lerup Storage Sys. First Nat'l Bank v. v. 569 P.2d (Utah 1977). 89 Utah Haymond, authority to set aside court with the sale.14 1 First, they contend this sale.2 $16 Young example, in Schroe For v. "heightened" a "new" and standard created der, Territory of for the Supreme Court aside a sheriff's sale Huston. "'[gJreat inadequacy {fof noted that Utah Second, they argue that because this "new" only slight cireumstances of requires price] requires "compelling" civreum- standard party bene- in the conduct stances, longer it is no sufficient to demon presumption [a] the sale to raise fitted inadequacy great strate justify setting aside sale.15 fraud" and to Instead, cireumstances of unfairness. Dowse, Similarly, in we noted Pender now demonstrate claim that a must "(lt equity intervene will is well settled great inadequacy and substantial or cancel a aside an execution sale and set persuaded. are not unfairness. We deed, after the sheriff's matter, disagree 119 As an initial appears the con expired, [that] where it that our contention inadequate and the grossly sideration in Fustorn-that "a court should statement attended sale was when the sale] sheriffs [set Pender, reiterated that we also fraud.1 compelling and move equities of the case are requires only price] "great [of the conscience of the court 22 a in the con slight cireumstances of "higher" setting standard for aside "new" or by sale to party benefitted duct of 7 creating in Rather than a sheriff's sale Utah. of fraud.1 presumption raise the standard, in a new our statement Huston $17 revisited the standard We merely synthesized and articulated the stan in v. sale Huston setting aside a sheriff's consistently applied in dard that we have our Huston, prior our In we reaffirmed Lewis.18 context.23 In other cases in the sheriff's sale equi sitting "a court stating that opinions, words, precedent of our concern our review redemption period or set ty may extend ing indicates that this court sheriff's sales after sale sheriffs always required party that a demon 9 noted, however, "a redemption.1 We compelling circumstance that "moves strate a an action when should take such court of the court" before a district the conscience compelling and equities of the case are equitable authority with is vested of the court.20 move the conscience redemption period or set aside a extend a fact, {18 case, supported In our Appellants sheriffs sale.24 we the instant by directly citing in Huston in two statement argue that the court of erred concluding that context, the district respects in in early in the sheriff's sale cases 1894,25 cluding Young,which decided great inadequacy of was findings court's of "both Thus, any ambigui the extent that there is slight cireumstances of the sales ty, clarify that our statement Huston ... to vest served (footnote omitted). at 19. Id. 535 Young, e.g., 647-48; at See, Pender, 14. Marvel, note at 254; P. at see also 37 supra ("[Clases jurisdictions have numerous 794 from added) (internal (emphasis quotation 20. Id. justi ... a court is [that] contained statements omitted). marks setting sale] aside a sheriff's where [in fied accompanied by gross inadequacy is 331, ¶ 20, 224 v. 2009 UT 21. unfairness, slight or circumstances indicative of P.3d 713. by slight irregulari where the is affected sale omitted)). (internal quotation marks ties." added) (internal (emphasis 22. P.2d at 535 added) (emphasis (quoting at 15. 37 P. Graf omitted). quotation marks Burgess, 6 S.Ct. 117 U.S. fam (1886). L.Ed. eg. See, 23. id. 265 P.2d at 647. 16. 648. Pender, See 265 P.2d at omitted). (internal quotation at 648 marks Id. Huston, 818 P.2d at 535-36. See 1991). (Utah

18. 818 P.2d 531 THE DID II. COURT OF APPEALS NOT simply emphasize intended to the limited ERR IN AFFIRMING THE DIS- a court should exer cireumstances which TRICT COURTS CONCLUSION authority aside a equitable cise its to set THAT THE APPELLANTS' CON- not intended to sheriff's sale and that was TO, LEAST, AT DUCT AMOUNTED heightened a new or standard. create SLIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES OF UN- disagree FAIRNESS 20 We also argument showing that a Having concluded that the court price together slight cireamstances of did not err in its construction of unfairness is not sufficient to set aside setting the standard for aside a sheriff's above, sheriff's sale. As noted we have con we must now determine whether the court of sistently "great [of stated that affirming erred in the district court's involved, conclusion that the facts of this case price] requires only slight least, slight circumstances of unfairness. party unfairness in the conduct of the bene- by presumption fitted the sale to raise the above, explained 123 As a district court ** that, clarify And we now unless may redemption period extend a or set aside fraud.26 (1) rebutted, presumption is a court sheriff's sale where debtor's (2) grossly inadequate price sold at a justifiably gross showing find that a inade there are cireumstances of unfairness quacy price together cireum- con compelling stances of unfairness constitutes a duct of the benefitted the sale. justifies cireumstance that aside a Although Appellants concede that Mr. sheriff's sale.27 Pyper's property grossly was sold at a inade sum, 1 21 In quate price, argue we conclude that the court of appeals affirming in erred the district court's gross inadequacy statement-that of involved, conclusion that the of facts this case price slight and cireumstances of unfairness least, slight at cireumstances of unfairness.28 justify setting a sheriff's sale-does not disagree. We "compelling conflict with the cireumstance" standard in articulated Huston. We there- previously explained T24 We have appeals fore hold that the court of did not err high degree that a district court a of in determining discretion in its construction of the standard for whether the facts aside sheriff's sale. justify extending redemption peri of case See, Pender, e.g., (emphasis 265 P.2d at 647-48 e.g., Young, Pender, 27. See, 648; 265 P.2d at added) (internal omitted). quotation marks 254; P. at see also 57 P.2d at 1404 Haymond, ("[WThile jurisdictions Courts in other have also consistent [a sheriff's] confirmation of ordinarily sale will not be refused because of mere inade ly recognized gross inadequacy that of quacy price, slight of circumstances in addition slight pre circumstances of unfairness create a gross inadequacy thereto or of sufficient to e.g., See, of fraud. Milner v. Denman, sumption justifies [a] shock court's conscience refusal to 182, 654, (1961) ("It 21 Ill.2d 171 N.E.2d is (internal omitted)). quotation confirm." marks well settled in this State that of price is not of itself sufficient to set aside a Appellants argue 28. The also that the court of shown, judicial yet inadequacy when such is concluding erred in that "even a lack of coupled slight indicating with circumstances un part purchaser affirmative actions on the fraud, upon part fairness or either of slight can constitute circumstances of unfair- officer, purchaser or the to the record claims, Contrary Appellants' ness." how- benefitted the sale, it will be sufficient ever, we find no such conclusion in the court of (internal equitable quotation intervention." appeals' opinion. Additionally, our review of the omitted)); Frost, McCartney marks 282 Md. appeals' opinion suggests court of that it did find (1978) ("Although 386 A.2d engaged that Mr. Dorius had in affirmative con- cases and the authorities indicate that a will sale duct-discussing payoff amount with Mr. inadequateness price, not be set aside for mere of stating that he needed to review Mr. grossly inadequate state that if the sale is so offer with Mr. Bond. Because the facts of this conduct, degree court, as to shock the conscience or if case involve some of affirmative slight there be but circumstances of unfairness in express opinion we no on whether a court would great inadequateness price, addition to justified finding a sale be in a case not in aside."). involving will be set affirmative conduct. do believe that their demption process, we after the sale setting aside a sheriffs od or redemption period.29 We willingness negotiate indicated a expiration of conduct judgment against Py- a district that settlement of indicated have therefore conduct, a sheriff's sale of this per. to set aside As a result decision court's reasonably believed that he could have ... discret an abuse of "for be reviewed review, to Firm dispute this standard with the Law Under resolve the ion.3 through negotiation, conclusion reacquire the trial court's reverse his cireum- slight unnecessary case involved of this therefore facts and that unfairness, Thus, the court redemption process. stances utilize the him to that, "given required to find acknowledge have been this is a close although would we facts, the trial court's case, failure concludethat the applicable law unreasonable." [was] decision in accordance with this to act least, to, slight at cireumstances of amounted fact, the trial court findings its that the court therefore hold unfairness. We the Law Pyper had called that Mr. found affirming the district appeals did not err prior to the one month approximately Firm that the facts of this case court's conclusion During redemption period. expiration of the involved, least, slight circumstances of un at call, expressed his phone this fairness. judgment against him off the pay desire Firm employee of the an and was told him attorney would call back. CONCLUSION Pyper had a that Mr. also found trial court did « 27 We hold that the court ap- Mr. Dorius telephone conversation concluding gross not err During later. this one week proximately price together conversation, Pyper again expressed his may justify setting aside a sher- judgment against him satisfy the desire hold that the court of iffs sale. We also $8,500 Dorius to do pay and offered affirming appeals did not err Pyper that he informed Mr. Mr. Dorius so. Appellants' con- conclusion that court's the offer with needed to discuss least, to, cireum- duct amounted up followed Mr. Dorius never but affirm of unfairness. We therefore stances appeals' decision. findings, the reviewing these 126 After appeals concluded that Mr. Dorius's court of and Justice T28 Chief Justice DURHAM phone his call with and actions

words in Associate Chief Justice PARRISH concur implicitly, at least Pyper "represented, Mr. opinion. DURRANT's partici going to Appellants] were [the redemption process.32 pate NEHRING, concurring and Justice it was explained also of court dissenting part: to act in accordance Appellants' "failure majority's in Part 129 I concur I justified] representation that with this opinion. warranting finding of unfairness court's district lief,33 {30 agree dissent, however, Althoughwe do not compelled I to am re majority's that Messrs. im conclusion represented an from Appellants' conduct themselves Bond and Dorius conducted participate in the re willingness to plicit however, review, Lewis, (Utah the court rectness standard v. 29. See Huston 1991). implicitly found that the district its had not abused discretion. Id.; Dep't v. Utah State Com 30. see also Mack 47, ¶ 22, ("We merce, 221 P.3d 194 2009 UT P.2d at 534. Huston, equitable an abuse of grant relief for review a discretion."). appeals appears to The court of ¶ 18, Pyper 2009 UT court's decision for reviewed the district have P.3d 713. correctness, rigorous standard of review a more By af standard. than the abuse of discretion Id. firming under a cor court's decision Pyper. my manner that was unfair to Mr. presented In explanation no for his refusal to view, it was unreasonable for the court of return Pyper's phone Mr. calls. He has no Pyper's to hold that Mr. former law- obligation provide to explanation. such an yers advantage ignorance Instead, took unfair of his Mr. Dorius per and Mr. Bond were redemption process they fectly when rights refused within their to negoti refuse to negotiate a settlement or communicate ate a settlement judgment against of their Pyper. with Mr. Pyper Mr. and to insist that Pyper Mr. follow proper procedures if he wanted to re First, I am majority's troubled property. deem his Nothing that Mr. pejorative characterization of Messrs. did, including persistent unreciprocated tele Bond's and nonparticipation Dorius's in set phone Firm, placed calls to the changes the negotiations tlement or conversations about conclusion that Mr. Bond and Mr. Dorfus had the redemption process Pyper. with Mr. We duty correspond no Pyper. with Mr. have little information about the cireum- surrounding stances Second, Mr. Bond's and Mr. if even Messrs. Bond and participate Dorius's decision not to in settle participated Dorius had negotiations negotiations Pyper. fact, ment Mr. Pyper, Mr. we cannot know what the nature the record finding shows that a of unfair of that participation would have been or arising expiration before the whether it prevented would have the contro- versy could stem from Although before us. he describes Mr. First, three occurrences.1 Mr. Bond's unfair, and Mr. Dortus's conduct as Mr, unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr. presented no evidence that eighteen Bond for the days first time before these actions him forgo oppor- 180-day redemption period expired. tunity property. Instead, redeem his Second, Bond never phone returned the call. Pyper's failure to redeem and the forfeiture later, days five Pyper spoke right of this likely were more based on his Dorius who indicated that he either would ignorance that the law allowed him to unilat- not or could negotiate any not kind of a erally redeem his days within 180 settlement without speaking first to Mr. the sheriffs Nothing sale. in the record Thereafter, Bond. neither Mr. suggests Dorius nor that Mr. Bond or Mr. Dorius creat- spoke third, Bond Pyper. with Mr. And ed, encouraged, exploited or Pyper's ig- neither Mr. Bond nor Mr. responded Dorius However, norance. we can be sure that Mr. any daily telephone calls from Mr. Pyper had expect no reason to that Mr. Bond Mr. Dortus would rescue him from and/or his ignorance given already pur- had 132 I do agree not majority's with the action, sued judgment, obtained a conclusion that this conduct anwas indication upon levied property. Quite "willingness negotiate a settlement. simply, Messrs. Bond's and Dorius's inter- agree Nor Ido that such conduct would lead ests were adverse to those of their former person a reasonable to conclude that the client, they and had no reason to him save redemption process necessary was not to ignorance. from his protect rights. Rather, one's I believe that reasonably facts more convey that Mr. 34 The court concluded that Bond persistently consistently communi Pyper's counsel, "[als former Bond and Dori- cated his negotiate any refusal kind aof us had obligation some advantage not to take settlement when he did not return single Pyper's ignorance.3 known Under Utah telephone call from Mr. Bond Rule of "(al 1.9(c)(1), Professional Conduct 1. The court of majority's opin- and the redemption period expired are irrelevant ions outline additional interactions between the analysis. our parties May that occurred after when redemption However, period expired. Supra inquiry relevant "slight is whether there were circumstances of redemp- 331, 17,¶ Pyper v. 2009UT 224P.3d by tion conduct bene- by fitted supra (emphasis the sale." See added). result, any As a occurring events after timely assert his re quiring Mr. a client formerly represented lawyer who demption rights. ... use information thereafter . not shall to the disad representation relating to the reverse the court of 1 36 I would therefore However, client.4 vantage of the former appeals. igno Pyper's knowledge regarding any was not related redemption law rance LEE concurs in Justice 137 Justice Py- representation of Bond's or Dorius's concurring dissenting NEHRING's matter, arose but instead probate per opinion. ended in the representation had their after Messrs. dispute. fee While of their context obligation have an ethical and Dorius Bond Pyper, affirmatively mislead

not regarding him obligation to advise no

have ends and representation law onee their adverse.5 Without interests become their duty to com legal or ethical affirmative some 2011 UT 46 non- municate, and Dortus's Bond's Messrs. OF In the Matter ADOPTION "slight even the cannot create communication A.M.F.S.; R.E.F.S; R.B.F.S.; upon which the unfairness" O.J.F.S., minor children. its result. opinion relies for majority not overlook Finally, we should T35 Petitioners, A.F.M., B.J.M. represented fact that Mr. pe redemption during and after counsel clear, entirely not B.S., Respondent. the record is riod. While Dortus were aware Bond and if Messrs. No. 20090836. counsel, by legal represented Pyper was from obligation to refrain they had an ethical Supreme of Utah. Court Pyper or communicating directly with Mr. Aug.2,2011. im any phone calls.6 More returning of his lawyer's to a is fundamental portantly, from protect his client that he ignorance of the effects of

the deleterious duty to Pyper's lawyer had a

law.7 redemption rights in the him of his

inform timely rights on assert those

process and behalf, that Messrs. Given longer represented Mr. Dorius no

Bond and adverse, and were

Pyper, that their interests separate legal Pyper had obtained

that Mr.

counsel, any in re I do not see Conpucr Conpuct 4.2(a) ("In representing 1.9(c)(1) (emphasis 6. Uran R. Pror't add-

4. Urau R. Pro's ed). about shall not communicate client, lawyer person subject representation with a represented another lawyer knows to be Conduct of Professional 5. Under Utah Rule matter."). lawyer 1.6(b)(5), attorney "may reveal information relating a client ... Conpuct Urag ("As repre- pmbl. controversy R. Pror'c 7. See or defense ... establish a claim clients, lawyer performs various duty lawyer sentative of the client." If the between advisor, lawyer provides attorney As an abridged functions. confidentiality because understanding an informed client with adverse due to a fee dis- interests become client obligations explains legal rights attorney no client's reasonably that the pute, follows advocate, implications. a law- practical As their obligation advise the former longer has an position under yer zealously the client's dispute asserts respect to their of the law with client adversary system."). the rules of the are adverse. very that their interests reason

Case Details

Case Name: Pyper v. Bond

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 29, 2011

Citation: 258 P.3d 575

Docket Number: 20091025

Court Abbreviation: Utah