You Are Not Limited to Rule 11 When Dealing With Unethical Conduct in Utah

I have been suffering at the hands of a less-than-ethical practicing attorney in Utah since 2000.  I recently ran across a case reminding me that we are not limited to bringing a Rule 11 motion for sanctions when things get out of hand.  The Utah Supreme Court expressed in Griffith v. Griffith, 1999 UT 78, ¶13, 985 P.2d 255, that district courts have an inherent power to control their courtroom and levy appropriate and potentially far-reaching sanctions:

It is undoubtedly true that courts of general and superior jurisdiction possess certain inherent powers not derived from any statute. Among these are the power to punish for contempt, to make, modify, and enforce rules for the regulation of the business before the court, … to recall and control its process, to direct and control its officers, including attorneys as such, and to suspend, disbar, and reinstate attorneys. Such inherent powers of courts are necessary to the proper discharge of their duties….

The summary jurisdiction which the court has over its attorneys as officers of the court … is inherent, continuing, and plenary … and ought to be assumed and exercised … not only to maintain and protect the integrity and dignity of the court, to secure obedience to its rules and process, and to rebuke interference with the conduct of its business, but also to control and protect its officers, including attorneys.

Id. (citing In re Evans, 42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217, 224-25 (Utah 1913) (cited in Barnard v. Wassermann, 855 P.2d 243, 249 (Utah 1993) (“[C]ourts of general jurisdiction … possess certain inherent power to impose monetary sanctions on attorneys who by their conduct thwart the court’s scheduling and movement of cases through the court.”))).

Don’t get mad and don’t try to get even—just protect the rights of your client to be free from unethical conduct.  The practice of law is enjoyable.  Don’t let the few bad apples spoil your fun.  Be safe out there.