In the Matter of the Discipline of Nathan N. Jardine (Utah State Bar v Jardine)

Jardine petitioned for reinstatement after being suspended for 18 months. The district court denied his petition ruling he failed to comply with several requirement of rule 14-525 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that Jardine failed to meet four of the requirements of 525 in that he drafted a demand letter in Utah  thus violating a term of suspension that he not practice law in Utah, failed to demonstrate honesty necessary to practice law as he only offered conclusory testimony of a coworker and a relative, failed to keep himself informed of changes in the law in that he did not undertake any educational activity and failed to provide any reason for failing to pass the MPRE as defending oneself form an ethics charge is not good cause. The Court held the requirement to repay the bar for a fee paid to a former client was error as the fee in question was not unreasonable and thus no ground for the Bar to have paid the former client. In the opinion, the Court also held the district courts failure to more clearly separate factual findings from legal conclusions did not violate rule of civil procedure 52 given the court’s duty to independently evaluate the evidence and that the subsection on proving honesty should be amended to provide more guidance to applicants for readmission.