In the Matter of Discipline of Tyler James Larsen, 2016 UT 26, A.K.A., Death to Negligently and Recklessly

Sometimes, you wake up in the morning and read a case that makes you smile. That case, oddly enough, is the Utah Supreme Court’s latest attorney discipline case: In the Matter of Discipline of Tyler James Larsen.

Facts

Mr. Larsen, allegedly, did a couple naughty things:

  1. He misrepresented facts to the court during a hearing.
  2. He failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in a timely manner (i.e., he didn’t  disclose it until during trial).

I only care about the first naughty thing.

Essentially, during a hearing on a DUI, Mr. Larsen represented to the Court he had a spreadsheet showing a woman on probation had paid $6000 in restitution, and then said his boss (the Davis County Attorney) didn’t want that information disclosed. (The spreadsheet conversation happened during a sidebar with the Judge.)

Apparently, Mr. Larsen didn’t actually have the spreadsheet he claimed, and his boss hadn’t requested the information not be disclosed.

Analysis

In light of this, the Office of Professional Counsel filed disciplinary charges against Mr. Larsen for misstatements to the Court, a violation of Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), which reads in relevant part:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a)(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.

Knowingly v. Recklessly v. Negligently

The problem in this case is the word “knowingly.” See, OPC for quite a while now has pushed a theory that knowingly doesn’t mean knowingly. Instead, according to OPC, knowingly means “recklessly” or “negligently.”

Now, almost every attorney who remembers anything form their 1L tort class remembers that you can’t act negligently if you, in fact, act knowingly. It’s a logical impossibility. This memory appears to have escaped OPC, however, as they have been attempting to discipline lawyers under Rule 3.3 according to the negligent standard, despite the plan language of the Rule, which requires actual knowledge.

In Mr. Larsen’s case, OPC dressed “Negligently” in different clothes and named her “Recklessly.” Thankfully, the Supreme Court was not fooled.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by recognizing the District Court specifically did not find intentional misrepresentation: “I did not find intentional misrepresentation; I found reckless misrepresentation.”

In order to get around the District Court’s plain admission, as well as the plain language of Rule 3.3, OPC asked the Court to interpret the Rule to “encompass reckless misstatements made without any plausible basis in fact.”

The Supreme Court rejected OPC’s rewriting of Rule 3.3 in total. The Supreme Court noted Rule 3.3(a)(1) “requires proof that a misstatement was made knowingly. So, it was error for the district court to conclude that there was a violation of rule 3.3 in the absence of a finding of a knowing misstatement.” It then went on to say: “Our rules do not treat knowledge and recklessness as equivalents. They state that “[k]knowingly, ‘known’ or ‘knows’ denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question.”

So, that’s pretty clear and a pretty simple analysis. It’s nice when simple plain language rules the day.

Comment 3

Perhaps the best part of the Supreme Court’s decision is its treatment of Comment 3 to Rule 3.3.

Comment 3 reads:

An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client’s behalf, and not assertions by the lawyer. Compare Rule 3.1. However, an assertion purporting to be on the lawyer’s own knowledge, as in an affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry. There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation. The obligation prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) not to counsel a client to commit or assist the client in committing a fraud applies in litigation. Regarding compliance with Rule1.2(d), see the Comment to that Rule. See also the Comment to Rule 8.4(b).

The Supreme Court recognized the language dealing with “reasonably diligent inquiry” could create confusion when superimposed of the knowingly standard.

The Court dealt with this confusion by recognizing (correctly) that Comment 3 is, in fact, not a Rule of Professional Conduct. Instead, it is a comment. Comments can be aspirational in nature, or they can be explanatory in nature, but they are not actual Rules in nature. Think of them as if they were legislative history. Legislative history are merely comments about a statute. Comments are not law. Statutes are law.

Given the confusion Comment 3 creates, the Supreme Court rescinded Comment 3 and directed that it be stricken from the Rules altogether.

If you read between the lines here, the Supreme Court seems to have known about OPC’s push to change knowingly to negligently or recklessly. It took this opportunity to end that power play and kill both negligently and recklessly once and for all. Good for the Supreme Court.

Why This Matters

All of this matters because Utah attorneys have been living in fear of OPC’s reinterpretation of Rule 3.3 for quite some time.

Imagine the following situation. Client tells Attorney something that isn’t quite right. Attorney relies solely on Client’s account of events and represents that account to the Court. Turns out Client’s account was wrong, and patently wrong, and is proved so in court. Opposing counsel turns in Attorney to OPC because Attorney did not conduct a reasonably diligent inquiry before presenting evidence to the court.

Under this scenario, there is no reason why OPC could not file and successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against Attorney. I mean, Attorney didn’t do due diligence, right? He just relied on his client, who turned out to be full of crap. How is that a reasonably diligent inquiry?

If this were the actual Rule 3.3 standard, attorneys would live in fear every day that they could be disciplined for trusting their clients. That would paralyze the practice of law.

And this is exactly why Rule 3.3 requires actual knowledge. Thankfully, the Utah Supreme Court reasserted the Rule 3.3’s plain language and reigned in the not-so-subtle attempt to rewrite the Rule without its oversight or approval.

(Here is a link to the Opinion: In re Tyler Larsen.pdf)

Protect Your Money And Your Family

We remove fear associated with divorce, protect your money & maximize time with your kids!

We're here to help. Let's determine your best options.

Call Us 24//7 at 801-685-9999 to Speak with a Live Representative

Utah Divorce FAQs
Top 100 Divorce Blog
What Clients Are Saying…
BrownLaw icon
Excellent
Brown Family Law
4.8
Based on 918 reviews
Great support, Russell and Connor were amazing and got my case dismissed in only 2 months. Great communication with weekly calls. Easy to work with and were very conscious on not overspending my budget. Great team.
Response from the owner:Daniel, thank you for the kind words, and happy Russell and Connor did well for you.
Anne Greyson long was great to work with she really listens and fights for her clients thank you so much for all your hard work
Response from the owner:Thank you, Heather. Glad Anne-Greyson helped you so well.
You get what you pay for, and the Brown Family team is worth every penny. We truly appreciated their team-based approach, making sure that every detail of our case was thoughtfully handled. They were incredibly easy to work with, kept us informed throughout the process, and made sure no question ever went unanswered. By far the best family attorneys I’ve worked with, and the only ones I’ll call if I ever need legal help again.
Response from the owner:Chris, thank you. Glad we were able to guide you through your process.
Andrew made the whole process smooth and quick! Kept me updated on any changes, and followed up with me constantly!

Made me feel at ease throughout the whole process and made sure I felt seen/ heard!
Response from the owner:Joselyn, thank you for the kind words.
David Handy is my attorney and he is excellent. He understands my cases and is well informed to defend my needs and the needs of my kids. He is supportive and compassionate. Telling me how things are and what to expect. He does very well with my high conflict cases (protective order and divorce). I highly recommend him and the Brown Family Law firm. Everyone I have talked to is helpful. Especially Conor Schetzel who is currently the paralegal on my cases.
Response from the owner:Suzanne, thank you and glad David has taken care of you.
Nathaniel Garrabrandt and Brown Family Law is where I send people who are seeking Divorce. Highly professional and compassionate. Thank you!
Response from the owner:Jaren, thank you for the referrals.
I cannot say enough good about my experience with Brown Family Law. Ray Hingson and paralegal Carren did an excellent job with my case. I will definitely use this firm again for any legal issues.
Response from the owner:Meghann, so glad Ray and Carren took good care of you.
I have worked with Andrew Christensen many times in a variety of situations. I am very impressed with his friendly demeanor in a difficult situation. I would highly recommend him to you without any reservations.
Response from the owner:Thank you, Monica.
Highly recommend Brown Family Law. Life is hard, divorce is harder, and Andrew Christensen is your guy to help you through to the other side.
Response from the owner:Mike, thank you for the kind words and the referrals.
When you’re going through a tough time and need legal help, this firm isn’t just a one-person operation. It’s a team of attorneys who work together to support you every step of the way. So you’re not just getting a lawyer, you’re getting a legal team behind you.

Navigating the legal system was a steep learning curve for me, and my situation was fairly complex. What stood out about this law firm was the way multiple attorneys collaborated to address my case. It wasn’t just one person working in isolation, but a team supporting each other to find the best path forward. That kind of collective effort is a real strength, especially in hard out complex situations like mine.

There was one issue I felt should have had a different outcome with the court. When I brought it up, the team responded in a very professional and respectful manner, which I truly appreciated. It came to my understanding that the legal system sometimes works in a way that is distant than I thought. This was presented to me in a way that someone outside of the legal system could understand.

In my experience, this firm takes the time to not only assist you, but also help you understand why things are happening. That made a big difference for me, and it’s something that really sets them apart.
Response from the owner:David, thank you for our conversation and taking the time to leave this review.
yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7

Categories

Related Posts