## Facts

- A nonlawyer marketing company, Utah Legal Group (ULG), solicited a criminal defendant, Thomas Broude, after his arrest and offered to arrange legal representation.
- Broude’s mother, Judy Carey, signed a contract with ULG and paid $6,000; the contract stated ULG would retain and pay an attorney, monitor the case, and resolve disputes.
- ULG retained attorney Jere B. Reneer to represent Broude for a flat fee of $2,500; Reneer did not know Carey had agreed to pay ULG $6,000.
- Broude and Carey did not sign a separate written fee agreement with Reneer.
- Carey later complained to disciplinary authorities about the ULG arrangement and alleged misleading statements about likely outcomes and jail time.
- Disciplinary proceedings against Reneer focused on whether he obtained Broude’s informed consent to third-party compensation and whether related conduct constituted professional misconduct.
- The record contained no affirmative evidence describing what Reneer did or did not tell Broude about third-party payment implications; disciplinary bodies drew an inference of nonconsent from the absence of proof.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported finding that Reneer violated Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(f) by failing to obtain the client’s informed consent to accept compensation from a third party.
2. Whether Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a) may serve as an independent basis for discipline absent a proven underlying rules violation.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the private admonition imposed in the disciplinary proceeding.
- The court held the disciplinary authority did not produce substantial evidence that Reneer violated Rule 1.8(f).
- The court held Rule 8.4(a) may not be used as an independent ground for attorney discipline; it is derivative of an established underlying violation.

## Legal Principles

- In attorney discipline matters, disciplinary counsel bears the burden to prove rule violations with substantial evidence; an absence of documentation or testimony is not, by itself, substantial evidence of misconduct.
- Rule 1.8(f) permits third-party payment only if the client gives informed consent, the payor does not interfere with the lawyer’s independence or the client-lawyer relationship, and confidentiality is protected; discipline requires proof of a failure to satisfy these conditions.
- Rule 8.4(a) does not create stand-alone misconduct; it operates only when there is a proven violation (or attempted violation) of another professional conduct rule.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the private admonition because the evidence did not substantially support that the lawyer failed to obtain informed consent for third-party compensation, and it clarified that Rule 8.4(a) cannot independently justify discipline without a proven predicate rules violation.


In re Discipline of Reneer, 325 P.3d 104 (Utah 2014)