Opinion ID: 6496731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: opc counsel’s alleged violations of the

Text: UTAH RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ARE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE US 24 Spencer also argues that OPC Counsel’s conduct in the underlying Disciplinary Action violated a number of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, Spencer contends that OPC Counsel violated (1) rule 3.3(a)(1) when she knowingly made false statements concerning his connection to TSWF, (2) rule 3.3(b) when she knowingly elicited false testimony concerning his connection to TSWF and the nature of the fraud allegation in the Malpractice Action, and (3) rule 3.3(a)(2) when she failed to disclose controlling case law contrary to her position at closing arguments. 925 The OPC argues that Spencer’s allegations against OPC Counsel are inappropriately raised before this court. The OPC claims “Tt]here is a procedure in place when there are allegations of misconduct against an attorney,” and that Spencer stepped outside ability of a court to modify or vacate a sentence impacted by a defendant's fraud without courting double jeopardy. See United States v. Bishop, 774 F.2d 771, 774-76 (7th Cir. 1985); Goene v. State, 577 So.2d 1306, 1309 (Fla. 1991); People v. Ryan, 640 N.Y.S.2d 978, 983 (Sup. Ct. 1996); State v. Foster, 484 N.W.2d 113, 116-17 (N.D. 1992). Spencer v. OPC Opinion of the Court of that procedure when he appended his allegations against OPC Counsel to his appeal. The OPC is right. (26 “In attorney discipline cases, the power to sanction attorneys is vested in this court by the Utah Constitution.” Long v. Ethics & Discipline Comm. of the Utah Sup. Ct., 2011 UT 32, { 41, 256 P.3d 206; see also UTAH CONST. art. VIII, § 4 (“The Supreme Court by rule shall govern the practice of law, including ... the conduct and discipline of persons admitted to practice law.”). In line with this power, we have created a set of rules governing the process by which “any person may initiate a disciplinary proceeding against any [l]Jawyer.” Sup. CT. R. PRO. PRAC. 11-530(a); see id. R. 11-501 to - 591. (27 These rules allow a person to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney for the OPC by filing a complaint with the OPC. See id. R. 11-530(a)(1). Our Ethics and Discipline Committee will then assign a screening panel to review the complaint.6 Id. R. 11-542(f). After reviewing the complaint, the screening panel chair will decide if the complaint merits dismissal. Id. R. 11-542(f)(1). If the complaint is dismissed, “[t]he Complainant may appeal the screening panel chair’s dismissal to the [chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee],” who will then “conduct a de novo review of the file, and either affirm or reverse the dismissal.” Id. R. 11-542(f)(3), (4). “If the screening panel chair determines not to dismiss the Complaint, or the Committee chair reverses the dismissal on appeal, the Committee chair must request that the Supreme Court appoint a special counsel to... act as counsel for investigation ... of the Complaint.” Id. R. 11-542(5). After the investigation is complete, the special counsel will “notify the OPC of the results.” Id. 28 Spencer, it seems, has followed that process to its finish. Indeed, the OPC claims—and Spencer does not dispute—that “Spencer ... already submit[ted] a complaint relating to [OPC 6 The Ethics and Discipline Committee is comprised of attorneys and members of the public. Ethics & Discipline Committee, UTAH STATE BAR, https://www.utahbar.org/ethics-discipline-committee (last visited Apr. 14, 2022). Committee members participate in screening panels, which “review, investigate, and hear informal complaints charging unethical and/or unprofessional conduct against attorneys.” Id. 10 Cite as: 2022 UT 28 Opinion of the Court Counsel]’s conduct to the OPC and through a special prosecutor, those allegations were dismissed.” 429 Our Rules do not permit Spencer to use the appeal of his rule 60(b) motion as a vehicle to re-litigate his allegations against OPC Counsel. Our Rules specify the process a complainant must follow to lodge a complaint and to contest that complaint’s dismissal. See id. R. 11-501 to -591. And while we do not foreclose the ability of a complainant to argue that she should be able to use the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to augment that process in an appropriate case, see UTAH R. CIv. P. 65B, we prohibit a complainant from relying on an appeal of a related motion to subvert it.