Can attorneys delay filing extraordinary relief petitions in Utah? Gilbert v. Third District Court Judges Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Gilbert v. Third District Court Judges demonstrates the critical importance of timing when seeking extraordinary relief and the consequences of failing to pursue ordinary appellate remedies.

Background and Facts

Attorney Donald Gilbert represented clients in litigation involving the Utah Down Syndrome Foundation. Despite a 2007 injunction restraining defendants from accessing Foundation bank accounts, Gilbert’s clients paid his attorney fees using $30,000 from those accounts. In 2008, the district court ordered Gilbert to disgorge the funds. Gilbert challenged this order multiple times: first in 2010 through a motion to vacate (denied), then through an attempted direct appeal (rejected because he wasn’t a party), and finally in 2014 through a motion for relief from judgment (denied). Only in 2015 did Gilbert file a petition for extraordinary relief.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether to grant extraordinary relief despite Gilbert’s significant delays and failure to pursue ordinary remedies. Under Rule 65B, extraordinary relief is available only “where no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court denied the petition, emphasizing that courts have broad discretion to grant or deny extraordinary relief. The court applied the Barrett factors but ultimately concluded that Gilbert’s “repeated and lengthy delays” without justification weighed decisively against relief. Gilbert waited over two years to challenge the 2008 disgorgement order, then another two-and-a-half years after the court’s guidance to file his extraordinary relief petition. Regarding the 2014 motion denial, the court found Gilbert had failed to pursue the plain remedy of seeking intervention and direct appeal.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that extraordinary relief petitions must be filed within a reasonable time and only after exhausting ordinary remedies. The court’s analysis shows that even severe consequences like potential disbarment cannot overcome unreasonable delay. Practitioners should note that nonparties can preserve jurisdictional challenges while seeking intervention by raising such defenses in their initial pleadings, avoiding waiver under Rule 12(h).