Ciardi v Office of Professional Conduct

Ciardi appealed the order of disbarment. The Court upheld the finding of violation, but, reduced the sanction. It held that Ciardi waived his challenge to venue by failing to raise it at the screening hearing before the Office’s screening panel. It held Ciardi’s allegation of misconduct by Office attorneys was inadequately briefed lacking citations to the record and thus the Court declined to address the issue. The Court agreed with the district court that under the limited Utah precedent, suspension is the presumptive sanction. However, the Court held that the analysis of aggravating and mitigating circumstances was erroneous as it relied on pleadings that were not part of the disciplinary charge and also treated the facts supporting discipline as aggravating factors which was improper. It held ta two year suspension was adequate and reinstated Ciardi as two years had passed from the date of disbarment. It noted that Ciardi could face discipline for his conduct in the district court and appeal of his disbarment.

Fish v Fish

Husband appealed the denial of his motion to modify the parties’ divorce decree. The panel, with one judge concurring in result, affirmed. The majority held the district court did in fact deny the modification motion and while made findings about new needs it did not change alimony and thus did not violate Utah statute on alimony. It held there was no mandate covering hours worked by wife and thus no error in making findings about work hours. It held that there is no requirement to impute income if a person is underemployed and husband’s briefing on this issue was inadequate. It held that increases in income over time are foreseeable and thus there was no error in concluding no substantial change in circumstances occurred. It held that husband’s attacks on the outcome here did not constitute reasoned argument that the findings of the district court were not adequately supported. It finally held that husband was not a prevailing party either in the district court or on appeal and thus was not entitled to attorney fees.