Prior Disciplinary Case No Excuse For Failure To Pass MPRE

The Utah Supreme Court has denied the reinstatement petition of an attorney who had been suspended for 18 months in 2012.

One issue was unauthorized post-suspension practice

Before he was suspended, Mr. Jardine agreed to represent Jonathan Glodo. Mr. Glodo was an Alaskan resident who was involved in an automobile accident in Idaho. Because Mr. Jardine was not licensed in Idaho, all court filings were done through his brother, Joseph Jardine, who was licensed in Idaho. But Mr. Jardine concedes that he, not Joseph, performed almost all of the work on the case.

The client terminated the representation after learning about his disciplinary record.

He also failed  to take and pass the MPRE as required and

the district court denied reinstatement because Mr. Jardine failed to reimburse the Lawyers‘ Fund for Client Protection (Fund) for $1,000 that was paid to one of his former clients to compensate the client for Mr. Jardine‘s allegedly unreasonable fee.

The court here found that he was not obligated to repay the fee.

But

During the reinstatement-petition hearing, Mr. Jardine offered little evidence that he had the requisite honesty and integrity to practice law. He offered only the testimony of a paralegal at his office and the testimony of his sister. On direct examination, the paralegal was asked whether he ever saw Mr. Jardine engage in ―any dishonesty of any sort . . . in any of the business deals that [he] saw [Mr. Jardine] involved in?‖ The paralegal responded ―I did not. He was then asked whether he had ―ever known [Mr. Jardine] to lie to you or be dishonest with you in any way? The paralegal responded by saying ―[n]o. Finally, the paralegal was asked whether Mr. Jardine generally kept his word. He responded by saying ―[y]es. Mr. Jardine next called his sister to testify. On direct examination by Mr. Jardine, she testified that ―[i]t has been my experience in both business and personal that you have always tried to be right with everyone you know. Which would be honest and integritous [sic]. And if you feel like you have made an error that you would correct that error. These few quoted sentences constitute the entirety of Mr. Jardine‘s affirmative showing of his honesty and integrity.

The court further rejected the proposition that his prior disciplinary case established sufficient basis to excuse the MPRE condition

Mr. Jardine argues that he should not be required to pass the MPRE because he was involved in a prior disciplinary matter that ultimately resulted in an opinion from this court. He argues that he submitted over 110 pages of briefing to the court, which analyzed approximately fifteen ethical rules…Being subject to discipline and defending one‘s self does not constitute a good and sufficient reason for failing to comply with rule 14-525(e)(6)‘s requirement to pass the MPRE. In fact, the better argument is that attorneys who are subject to discipline have an even greater need to pass the MPRE.

He was disbarred for unrelated misconduct in South Carolina notwithstanding the fact that he had never been admitted to practice there. (Mike Frisch)