Utah Supreme Court
Can legal malpractice claims be assigned in Utah? Eagle Mountain v. Parsons Kinghorn Explained
Summary
Eagle Mountain City entered into an agreement with Cedar Valley Water Association to share recovery from a legal malpractice action against the City’s former attorneys. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the case, finding the arrangement violated public policy as an assignment of a legal malpractice claim.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Eagle Mountain v. Parsons Kinghorn, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether arrangements that transfer control or proceeds of legal malpractice claims violate public policy. The case arose when Eagle Mountain City entered into agreements with Cedar Valley Water Association to share recovery from a malpractice action against the City’s former attorneys, Parsons Kinghorn & Harris.
Background and Facts
The dispute originated from a contract where Eagle Mountain agreed to purchase a well from Cedar Valley. Parsons Kinghorn advised the City that triggering conditions for payment had not occurred, but Cedar Valley sued claiming payment was due. The parties settled through agreements giving Cedar Valley substantial control over a subsequent malpractice action against Parsons Kinghorn, including shared attorney representation, joint decision-making on settlements, and equal sharing of recovery proceeds.
Key Legal Issues
The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the malpractice claim, finding the agreements constituted an assignment that violated public policy. The court required the City to demonstrate independent prosecution of any refiled claim, free from Cedar Valley’s control.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, establishing a strong presumption that legal malpractice claims are voluntarily assignable. The court examined traditional public policy concerns raised by other jurisdictions: commoditization of claims, damage to attorney-client relationships, opportunities for collusion, and loss of public respect for the legal profession. The court found these concerns unpersuasive given Utah’s procedural safeguards, including Rule 11 deterrents against frivolous litigation and professional conduct rules.
The court noted that Utah already permits involuntary assignment of legal malpractice claims through bankruptcy, demonstrating that assignment does not inherently violate public policy. Modern litigation funding practices and reduced champerty concerns further supported allowing voluntary assignments.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly impacts settlement negotiations and litigation financing. Attorneys should expect that malpractice claims may become bargaining chips in settlements, potentially creating conflicts of interest requiring independent counsel. The ruling opens opportunities for third-party funding of malpractice actions while maintaining procedural safeguards against abuse. However, the court left open the possibility that specific assignments could violate “clearly defined and compelling public policy concerns” in future cases.
Case Details
Case Name
Eagle Mountain v. Parsons Kinghorn
Citation
2017 UT 31
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20150915
Date Decided
June 7, 2017
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Legal malpractice claims are presumed to be voluntarily assignable unless an assignment violates clearly defined and compelling public policy concerns.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment, giving no deference to the district court’s decision
Practice Tip
When challenging the assignment of legal malpractice claims, focus on specific public policy violations rather than general commoditization concerns, as Utah’s procedural safeguards address most traditional objections.
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.