Opinion ID: 2449627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the committee's sanctions are appropriate because each is based on different facts and circumstances

Text: ¶ 65 Having vacated the Committee's finding in the Nelson Matter, we next address Mr. Long's argument that the Committee's remaining sanctions are inappropriate. Mr. Long contends that his sanction of a public reprimand in the Henriod Matter is inappropriate because his conduct in that matter did not cause any injury. He also asserts that his sanction of a nonpublic admonition in the Shepard Matter is inconsistent with the discipline he received in the Henriod Matter because both matters involved violations of rule 1.5(a), rule 7.1, and rule 7.5(d). Thus, Mr. Long asserts that the sanctions he received are inappropriate and should be vacated. We disagree. ¶ 66 The Utah Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, part of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, provide a system for determining appropriate sanctions for lawyer misconduct. [56] This system is designed to permit[] flexibility and creativity in assigning [the particular] sanctions in particular cases. [57] In determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee should consider (a) the duty violated, (b) the lawyer's mental state, (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. [58] ¶ 67 Although the Utah Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provide nine categories of sanctions, [59] only the sanctions of public reprimand and nonpublic admonition are relevant to this case. The rules provide that a public reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in professional misconduct ... and causes injury to a party. [60] In contrast, a nonpublic admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in professional misconduct ... and causes little to no injury to a party ... but exposes a party ... to potential injury. [61] ¶ 68 Contrary to Mr. Long's argument, the Committee was correct in imposing a public reprimand in the Henriod Matter because Mr. Long's conduct in that matter caused his clients to suffer an injury. Specifically, Mr. Long's clients were injured when he charged and collected an unreasonable fee for the services he performed. ¶ 69 Furthermore, the sanction in the Henriod Matter is not inconsistent with the nonpublic admonition imposed in the Shepard Matter because each case involves different facts and circumstances. In the Shepard Matter, a nonpublic admonition is appropriate because Mr. Shepard suffered little to no injury since Mr. Long ultimately dismissed his collection action. [62] ¶ 70 Because the recommended sanctions stem from different facts and circumstances, they are appropriate under the rules and are therefore consistent with each other. Accordingly, we affirm the Committee's sanctions of a public reprimand in the Henriod Matter and a nonpublic admonition in the Shepard Matter.