Opinion ID: 4017899
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 15(e) determination fails.

Text: D. Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) ¶36 Gilbert also disputes the district court’s determination that he violated rule 8.4 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 8.4 defines professional misconduct and prohibits attorneys from engaging “in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” UTAH R. PROF’L CONDUCT 8.4(d). The district court concluded that Gilbert violated rule 8.4(d) by failing to comply with the Injunction, by failing to comply with the district court’s disgorgement order, and by assisting his clients’ violation of the Injunction. 12 Cite as: 2016 UT 32 Opinion of the Court ¶37 Gilbert does not challenge the facts underlying the court’s determination. Rather, Gilbert again contends that his actions did not violate rule 8.4 because he had a good faith belief that the district court’s orders were invalid. He points to comment 4 to rule 8.4, which states, “A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists.” Id. R. 8.4 cmt. 4. ¶38 That comment does not, however, provide an attorney carte blanche to ignore court orders. As explained above, the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct contemplate the situation in which Gilbert found himself: subject to an order he believed to be flawed. The rules instruct an attorney in that situation to either comply or openly refuse to comply. An open refusal permits the district court to assess the attorney’s argument and allows opposing counsel to take action to protect her client from the opposing attorney’s noncompliance. An attorney cannot, consistent with the rules of professional conduct, unilaterally and surreptitiously flout a court order. To the contrary, willful disregard of a district court’s order without an open objection constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. ¶39 Despite the directive of the rules of professional conduct, Gilbert declined to formally or openly object to the court’s order. Instead, Gilbert disregarded the disgorgement order without taking any action to appeal, stay, or otherwise object to the order. The district court correctly noted, “Regardless of whether an attorney believes that the attorney is entitled to fees from a client, if court orders award the funds to others, the attorney violates rule 8.4(d) by disregarding the orders.” See In re Disciplinary Action Against Igbanugo, 863 N.W.2d at 763–64 (concluding that an attorney’s “failure to comply with a court order is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” despite the attorney’s contention that the judge lacked authority to enter the order). ¶40 The district court did not err in determining that Gilbert’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that Gilbert violated rules 1.7, 1.15(e), 3.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.