Utah Court of Appeals
Can legal malpractice claims survive summary judgment without adequate factual support? Chilton and Glazier v. Young Explained
Summary
Former steelworkers sued their attorneys for legal malpractice after being dissatisfied with a $47 million settlement negotiated on behalf of a large group of plaintiffs. The district court dismissed all claims through three summary judgment orders in 2005, 2006, and 2008, finding no genuine issues of material fact and concluding the final claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Chilton and Glazier v. Young, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the evidentiary requirements for surviving summary judgment in legal malpractice cases and the application of statutes of limitations to attorney misconduct claims.
Background and Facts: Ronald Chilton and David Glazier were steelworkers who, along with many others, were represented by multiple law firms in labor law violation suits against their employer. After two cases resulted in favorable rulings, the attorneys negotiated a comprehensive settlement totaling approximately $47 million for the remaining plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with their share, Chilton and Glazier sued their former attorneys for legal malpractice, misrepresentation, fraud, and an accounting of settlement proceeds.
Key Legal Issues: The case involved multiple summary judgment challenges, including whether plaintiffs were entitled to 1988 vacation pay under their employment contract, whether sufficient evidence existed to support various malpractice claims, and whether the final breach of fiduciary duty claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals reviewed the summary judgment orders for correctness, applying no deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions. The court found that plaintiffs failed to identify any evidence that would defeat summary judgment on their dismissed claims. Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the court distinguished between the 2003 order (which denied an early dismissal motion) and the 2008 order (entered after substantial factual development), concluding that plaintiffs had sufficient facts to discover their claims when they received their final settlement checks.
Practice Implications: This decision reinforces that appellants challenging summary judgment must do more than rehash previous arguments—they must specifically identify record evidence creating genuine issues of material fact. The court also clarified that there is no constitutional right to effective counsel in civil cases, and that ineffective assistance of counsel in civil litigation typically requires a separate malpractice action rather than relief in the underlying case.
Case Details
Case Name
Chilton and Glazier v. Young
Citation
2009 UT App 265
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20080363-CA
Date Decided
September 17, 2009
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Legal malpractice claims are properly dismissed when plaintiffs fail to present sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment and when claims are barred by the statute of limitations with no showing that defendants prevented discovery of the cause of action.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment orders according no deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions; abuse of discretion for the district court’s refusal to reconsider a nonfinal summary judgment order
Practice Tip
When challenging summary judgment on appeal, plaintiffs must specifically identify evidence in the record that would create genuine issues of material fact rather than merely rehashing previous arguments.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.