Utah State Bar v. Jardine (In re Jardine)
| Decision Date | 19 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 20130289.,20130289. |
| Citation | 353 P.3d 154,2015 UT 51 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the DISCIPLINE OF Nathan N. JARDINE, # 081215 Utah State Bar, Appellee v. Nathan N. Jardine, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Billy L. Walker, Adam C. Bevis, Salt Lake City, for appellee.
Nathan N. Jardine, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Chief Justice DURRANT authored the opinion of the Court, in which Associate Chief Justice LEE, Justice DURHAM, Justice PARRISH, and Judge CHRISTIANSEN joined. Justice NEHRING did not participate herein due to his retirement; Court of Appeals Judge MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN sat. Justice DENO G. HIMONAS became a member of the Court on February 13, 2015, after oral argument in this matter, and accordingly did not participate.
Introduction
¶ 1 Nathan N. Jardine was suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months for violating numerous rules of professional conduct. Utah law allows for suspended attorneys to petition for reinstatement, however, and several years after being suspended, Mr. Jardine availed himself of this opportunity by filing a petition for reinstatement in district court. The district court denied his petition, concluding that he failed to comply with six requirements imposed by the rule governing reinstatement.
¶ 2 We affirm the district court's denial of reinstatement because Mr. Jardine failed to comply with four of the rule's requirements. First, he practiced law within the State of Utah while he was suspended. Second, he failed to establish that he has the requisite honesty and integrity to practice law. Third, he failed to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, and has not presented a “good and sufficient reason” for failing to do so. And finally, he failed to keep informed about recent developments in the law.
¶ 3 While ultimately affirming the district court's denial of reinstatement, we reverse the court's ruling that Mr. Jardine must reimburse the Utah State Bar $1,000 before he may be reinstated. Because the payment made by the Bar's fund for client protection to Mr. Jardine's former client cannot be traced to any violation of the professional rules by Mr. Jardine, there is no basis for concluding that he must reimburse the Bar.
¶ 4 Finally, we direct our rules committee to consider amending rule 14–525(e)(4) of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, which provides that a person seeking reinstatement must have the requisite honesty and integrity to practice law, to clarify what steps a person seeking reinstatement must take in order to establish honesty and integrity.
¶ 5 In August 2010, Mr. Jardine was suspended from the practice of law for three years. He appealed his suspension to this court. In an opinion issued on March 9, 2012, we held that Mr. Jardine had violated numerous ethical rules, but reduced his suspension period from three years to eighteen months.1 We issued a separate order that same day explaining that Mr. Jardine's suspension was complete and that he could begin the process of reinstatement.
¶ 6 Mr. Jardine filed a petition for reinstatement. The district court denied his petition because it concluded that he failed to comply with rule 14–525 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, which governs attorney reinstatement following a suspension of more than six months. Specifically, the court concluded that Mr. Jardine failed to comply with six of the rule's requirements.
¶ 7 The court concluded that Mr. Jardine violated rules 14–525(e)(1) and 14–525(e)(2) by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while he was suspended. Before he was suspended, Mr. Jardine agreed to represent Jonathan Glodo. Mr. Glodo was an Alaskan resident who was involved in an automobile accident in Idaho. Because Mr. Jardine was not licensed in Idaho, all court filings were done through his brother, Joseph Jardine, who was licensed in Idaho. But Mr. Jardine concedes that he, not Joseph, performed almost all of the work on the case.
The disciplinary order also noted that Mr. Jardine “may, with the consent of the client after full disclosure, wind up or complete any matters pending on the date of entry of the order.”
¶ 9 Mr. Jardine never informed Mr. Glodo that he was suspended, nor did he wind up his participation in the matter. Instead, he continued to work on the case after he was suspended. For instance, he exchanged numerous text messages with Mr. Glodo regarding the case. Among other things, Mr. Jardine advised Mr. Glodo that the case was “worth good money,” the “liability is great,” and that he had “a great case.” At one point, Mr. Glodo asked for an update on his case. Mr. Jardine told him that a lawsuit had been filed and that he was working on a demand letter that required his “special attention.” On December 23, 2010, he sent that demand letter to Hartford Insurance Company. The letter states that Mr. Jardine represents Mr. Glodo, analyzes the company's liability and Mr. Glodo's damages, and proposes a monetary settlement. The letter is printed on letterhead that lists Mr. Jardine's Utah address, but indicates he is licensed in California. The letter made no reference to Mr. Jardine's brother. Mr. Glodo ultimately terminated his relationship with Mr. Jardine after he learned of Mr. Jardine's disciplinary record. Mr. Glodo also filed an informal complaint against Mr. Jardine with the Office of Professional Conduct (OPC).
¶ 10 The district court concluded that by representing Mr. Glodo, Mr. Jardine violated two of rule 14–525's requirements. First, he violated rule 14–525(e)(1), which requires compliance “with the terms and conditions of all prior disciplinary orders,” because his prior disciplinary order specifically prohibited him from practicing law in Utah. And second, he violated rule 14–525(e)(2), which directly prohibits the unauthorized practice of law, by continuing to practice law while suspended.
¶ 11 Third, the district court denied reinstatement because Mr. Jardine had not demonstrated the requisite honesty and integrity required by rule 14–525(e)(4). As a basis for this conclusion, the court noted that “[t]he Office of Professional Conduct demonstrated substantial debts owed by Jardine, including taxes, child support and a civil judgment for which a Bench Warrant was issued.”
¶ 12 Fourth, the district court concluded that Mr. Jardine failed to show that he complied with rule 14–525(e)(5) by keeping informed about recent developments in the law. Mr. Jardine argued that he complied with this rule by working as a paralegal, but the court concluded that the rule “at a minimum, ... demands efforts comparable to those required of practicing attorneys, which is something more than merely being engaged in the practice of law.”
¶ 13 Fifth, the court denied reinstatement because Mr. Jardine failed to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE).
¶ 14 And finally, the district court denied reinstatement because Mr. Jardine failed to reimburse the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) for $1,000 that was paid to one of his former clients to compensate the client for Mr. Jardine's allegedly unreasonable fee.
¶ 15 Mr. Jardine now appeals the district court's denial of reinstatement. We have jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A–3–102(3)(c).
¶ 16 In attorney discipline cases, “we review the trial court's findings of facts under the clearly erroneous standard, [but] we reserve the right to draw different inferences from the facts than those drawn by the trial court.”2 And “[w]ith respect to the discipline actually imposed, our constitutional responsibility requires us to make an independent determination as to its correctness.”3
¶ 17 We conclude that Mr. Jardine failed to comply with four requirements imposed by rule 14–525 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice. Specifically, he failed to comply with the provisions requiring him to (1) comply with prior disciplinary orders, (2) demonstrate the requisite integrity to practice law, (3) pass the MPRE, and (4) keep informed about recent developments in the law. Because he failed to comply with these requirements, we affirm the district court's denial of reinstatement.
¶ 18 We also affirm the district court's denial of a continuance because granting Mr. Jardine additional time to pass the MPRE and complete continuing legal education classes (CLE) would have had no effect on the outcome of his reinstatement petition. Other deficiencies with his petition would have remained even if he had passed the MPRE and taken CLE courses, including his prior unauthorized practice of law and failure to establish the requisite honesty or integrity to practice law.
¶ 19 While we affirm the district court's denial of reinstatement, we reverse the portion of the court's ruling requiring Mr. Jardine to reimburse the Bar for $1,000 that it paid to one of his former clients. The fee Mr. Jardine charged that client was not in violation of any rule of professional conduct, and so there is no basis for requiring him to reimburse the Bar.
¶ 20 The OPC contends that Mr. Jardine should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert v. Utah State Bar (In re Gilbert)
... ... In re Discipline of Jardine , 2015 UT 51, 16, 353 P.3d 154 (citation omitted). 20 Gilbert also contends that the district court erred by improperly dismissing his third-party ... ...
-
State Bar News
...In In re: Discipline of Jardine, Utah attorney Nathan Jardine had been suspended from the practice of law in Utah for eighteen months. 2015 UT 51, ¶ 1, 353 P.3d 154. He sought reinstatement, but the Office of Professional Conduct argued against reinstatement because he had violated Rule 14-......