7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Houghton v. Department of Healthgreen1 sentence2024Once an ethical violation has been shown, we typically extend broad discretion to district courts in “deciding whether disqualification is a proper sanction.” Houghton v. Dep’t of Health, 962 P.2d 58, 61 (Utah 1998) (cleaned up), overruled on other grounds by Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Halegreen2 sentences2001Circuit's decision in Moody persuasive and adopt it here. 135 Accordingly, in situations where a court has determined that an attorney asserting work product immunity committed an ethical violation in obtaining the evidence at issue, the court must determine any applicable work product privilege vitiated and thus order disclosure of the evidence so long as the disclosure would not "traumatize the adversary process more than the underlying legal misbehavior." Moody, 654 F.2d at 801 ; see also Parrott, 707 F.2d at 1272 (ordering disclosure of clandestinely recorded conversations with witnesses b 2001Circuit's decision in Moody persuasive and adopt it here. ¶ 35 Accordingly, in situations where a court has determined that an attorney asserting work product immunity committed an ethical violation in obtaining the evidence at issue, the court must determine any applicable work product privilege vitiated and thus order disclosure of the evidence so long as the disclosure would not "traumatize the adversary process more than the underlying legal misbehavior." Moody, 654 F.2d at 801 ; see also Parrott, 707 F.2d at 1272 (ordering disclosure of clandestinely recorded conversations with witnesses | 1 | 1 |
Louise Parrott, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Parrott, Deceased v. Max v. Wilson, Etc.green1 sentence2001Circuit's decision in Moody persuasive and adopt it here. ¶ 35 Accordingly, in situations where a court has determined that an attorney asserting work product immunity committed an ethical violation in obtaining the evidence at issue, the court must determine any applicable work product privilege vitiated and thus order disclosure of the evidence so long as the disclosure would not "traumatize the adversary process more than the underlying legal misbehavior." Moody, 654 F.2d at 801 ; see also Parrott, 707 F.2d at 1272 (ordering disclosure of clandestinely recorded conversations with witnesses | 1 | 1 |
Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Americagreen1 sentence2001LEXIS 4994, at *18 (following Parrott ); Lamb, 125 F.R.D. at 143 (same); Haigh, 676 F.Supp. at 1357-58 (same). ¶ 36 In this case, we have already determined that the trial court appropriately found Atkin to have violated Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 by engaging in an ex parte conversation with a represented party concerning the dispute underlying this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Lambgreen1 sentence2001LEXIS 4994, at *18 (following Parrott ); Lamb, 125 F.R.D. at 143 (same); Haigh, 676 F.Supp. at 1357-58 (same). ¶ 36 In this case, we have already determined that the trial court appropriately found Atkin to have violated Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 by engaging in an ex parte conversation with a represented party concerning the dispute underlying this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Margulies Ex Rel. Margulies v. Upchurchgreen1 sentence1998RULE 1.9 OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT A. Standard of Review “Trial courts are usually given broad discretion in controlling the conduct of attorneys in matters before the court; their discretion extends to deciding whether disqualification is a proper sanction after a finding of an ethical violation.” Margulies v. Upchurch, 696 P.2d 1195, 1199 (Utah 1985) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Keith B. Redd, D/B/A Abajo Petroleum v. Shell Oil Company, in the Matter of Michael W. Graney, Attorney for Shell Oil Companygreen1 sentence1985Trial courts are usually given broad discretion in controlling the conduct of attorneys in matters before the court, Redd v. Shell Oil Co., 518 F.2d 311, 314 (10th Cir.1975); their discretion extends to deciding whether disqualification is a proper sanction after a finding of an ethical violation, W.T. | 1 | 1 |
W. T. Grant Company v. Mark S. Haines, and John A. Christensengreen1 sentence1985Grant Co. v. Haines, 531 F.2d 671, 676 (2d Cir.1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Planned Parenthood Association v. State
green
1 sentence2024It opined that SB 174 encroaches on “widely accepted principles of medical ethics” by: (1) substituting legislators’ opinions for a physician’s individualized patient-centered counseling and creating an inherent conflict of interest between 10 Cite as: 2024 UT 28 Opinion of the Court patients and medical professionals; (2) asking medical professionals to violate the age-old principles of beneficence and non-maleficence; and (3) requiring medical professionals to ignore the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy. ¶30 The brief contended that “the patient-physician relationship is cri | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Shearn Moody, Jr. v. Internal Revenue Service
green
2 sentences2001Circuit's decision in Moody persuasive and adopt it here. 135 Accordingly, in situations where a court has determined that an attorney asserting work product immunity committed an ethical violation in obtaining the evidence at issue, the court must determine any applicable work product privilege vitiated and thus order disclosure of the evidence so long as the disclosure would not "traumatize the adversary process more than the underlying legal misbehavior." Moody, 654 F.2d at 801 ; see also Parrott, 707 F.2d at 1272 (ordering disclosure of clandestinely recorded conversations with witnesses b 2001Circuit's decision in Moody persuasive and adopt it here. ¶ 35 Accordingly, in situations where a court has determined that an attorney asserting work product immunity committed an ethical violation in obtaining the evidence at issue, the court must determine any applicable work product privilege vitiated and thus order disclosure of the evidence so long as the disclosure would not "traumatize the adversary process more than the underlying legal misbehavior." Moody, 654 F.2d at 801 ; see also Parrott, 707 F.2d at 1272 (ordering disclosure of clandestinely recorded conversations with witnesses | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Stoddard v. United States
green
1 sentence1992Id. at 1341-42 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Russell Hobson
green
1 sentence1991While we do not go so far, Hobson held a defendant may not waive a conflict of interest where "the ethical violation involves public perception of the lawyer and the legal system rather than some difficulty in the attorney's effective representation_” 672 F.2d at 829 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.