Can trust reformation sever the attorney-client relationship? Snow et al v. Hon. Lindberg Explained

In Snow et al v. Hon. Lindberg, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a district court’s reformation of a charitable trust could sever the attorney-client relationship between the original trust and its attorneys. The case arose when the law firm Snow, Christensen & Martineau (SCM) was ordered to disgorge privileged communications to a reformed trust and was disqualified from representing adverse parties.

Background and Facts

The UEP Trust was a religious charitable trust created by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. After the trustees were suspended for breach of fiduciary duty, the district court appointed a special fiduciary and later reformed the trust using the cy pres doctrine. The reformation stripped the trust of its religious purposes and required secular administration, fundamentally altering the trust’s character and beneficiaries. The special fiduciary then sought privileged attorney-client communications from SCM and moved to disqualify the firm from representing parties adverse to the reformed trust.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether a petition for extraordinary relief was appropriate to challenge the orders; (2) whether SCM was required to disclose attorney-client privileged information to the reformed trust; and (3) whether SCM could represent clients with interests materially adverse to the reformed trust under Rule 1.9 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that the district court’s reformation so significantly altered the UEP Trust that it transformed into an entirely different entity. The court emphasized that the settlor’s intent was essential to the trust’s religious purpose, and the reformation’s elimination of religious elements was contrary to that intent. Because the reformed trust was not the same client as the original trust, SCM had no attorney-client relationship with the reformed entity and therefore could not be required to disgorge privileged communications or be disqualified from adverse representation.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important principles for trust litigation and attorney disqualification matters. When trust reformation fundamentally alters a trust’s purpose and identity, courts must carefully analyze whether the reformed entity remains the same client for privilege and ethical purposes. The case also confirms that Rule 65B petitions for extraordinary relief are appropriate when non-parties face irreparable harm from disclosure orders or disqualification, particularly when no other adequate remedy exists.