Court Opinion

ID: 9568477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:04:10.511451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:17.421655
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice,
concurring:
I concur fully in the majority opinion. However, I write to state that this matter should be referred to Bar Disciplinary Counsel.
The majority characterizes Mr. Malouf’s conduct in violation of rule 11 as “improper and oppressive,” states that his “disobedience to court orders and oppressive litigation tactics that waste court resources and require opponents to spend a great deal of money in defense thereof appear to be characteristic of Malouf’s practice,” and notes that on two occasions we have upheld sanctions against him for analogous misconduct. See Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 8.3, 3.4, 8.4. In my view, the time has come for Bar counsel to review Mr. Malouf s conduct for possible disciplinary proceedings.
Lawyers and judges increasingly complain about the public’s negative perception of the Bar. They properly observe that the public unfairly tars the vast majority of lawyers with a brush that should be reserved for a select few miscreants. The only way that the public’s misperception of the vast majority of honest, conscientious, and ethical lawyers will ever be corrected is if individual judges and lawyers are willing to overcome a natural resistance to being perceived as troublemakers and vigorously fulfill their sworn duty to refer to disciplinary counsel lawyers who evidence patterns of improper and oppressive litigation tactics. Indeed, such reporting is a basic premise of the entire disciplinary machinery of the Bar.1 And the Bar, *1082acting under this court’s supervision, does vigorously pursue discipline of its members when this conduct comes to its attention.
Today, by referring Mr. Malouf to Bar Disciplinary Counsel, I am fulfilling my obligation and reaffirming that we lawyers take seriously the need to police our profession.
DURHAM and RUSSON, JJ., concur in Chief Justice ZIMMERMAN’S concurring opinion.

. Rule 8.3(a) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct provides, “A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.” Canon 3(D) of the Code of Judicial Administration adds, "A judge should take or *1082initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware.”