Court Opinion

ID: 9604273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:17:23.305461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:52.988728
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice:
(Concurring and Dissenting).
I agree that this court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to Bar disciplinary matters. This is evident by reason of the unambiguous terms of Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-2(3)(e) and the likewise unambiguous rule-making authority afforded by article VIII, section 4 of the Utah Constitution.
I therefore do not concur in vacating the judgment of the trial court that was based on the conclusion, plainly supported by the facts, that Barnard had not made a reasonable inquiry into the law. In fact, it was not until after the court ruled that he was subject to sanctions for a violation of rule 11 that Barnard revealed the extent of his research. Even then, he failed to review *1238and apprise the court of the content of the dispositive statutory and constitutional provisions hereinabove set forth.