Utah Supreme Court
Can attorneys waive objections to defective intervention through litigation conduct? Boyle v. Clyde Snow & Sessions Explained
Summary
This case arose from a wrongful death action that settled after six years, leading to a dispute over attorney fees between Thomas Boyle and his former law firm Clyde Snow & Sessions. After settlement, Clyde Snow asserted a lien against settlement funds, and despite potential procedural deficiencies in its intervention, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s award of fees to Clyde Snow on jurisdictional grounds.
Analysis
In Boyle v. Clyde Snow & Sessions, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether an attorney can waive objections to another party’s procedurally defective intervention through litigation conduct. This case provides important guidance for practitioners on when objections to intervention may be deemed waived.
Background and Facts
The dispute arose from a wrongful death action where Thomas Boyle served as lead attorney at Clyde Snow & Sessions from 2007 to 2010. After Boyle left to join Prince Yeates, the client followed him to the new firm. When the case settled in 2013, Clyde Snow asserted an attorney lien against settlement proceeds for fees relating to its earlier representation. The firm filed an objection to dismissal and restated its lien notice, though it may not have properly complied with Rule 24 intervention requirements.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Boyle waived his right to challenge Clyde Snow’s intervention by participating in litigation over the merits of the fee dispute. The Utah Court of Appeals had reversed the district court’s fee award, finding that Clyde Snow failed to properly intervene and that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the attorney lien claim.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that Boyle waived any objection to procedural deficiencies in Clyde Snow’s intervention. The court found waiver based on Boyle’s conduct: (1) acquiescing in Clyde Snow’s assertion of a lien and right to recover fees, (2) participating in court-ordered mediation, (3) agreeing in principle to interpleader of disputed funds, and (4) asserting his own competing claim to fees. The court noted that Boyle even conceded at hearing that he would “probably agree” there was a waiver if he were in the court’s position.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that procedural objections to intervention must be preserved through consistent conduct. Attorneys cannot participate in litigation on the merits while simultaneously preserving challenges to another party’s right to participate. The ruling also clarifies that waiver is analyzed separately for each potential objecting party—here, only Boyle’s waiver mattered since the original defendants never appealed.
Case Details
Case Name
Boyle v. Clyde Snow & Sessions
Citation
2017 UT 57
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20160621-SC
Date Decided
August 29, 2017
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
An attorney waives objections to procedural deficiencies in another party’s intervention by acquiescing in litigation over the merits of that party’s claims and by asserting competing claims in the same proceeding.
Standard of Review
Correctness for the court of appeals’ opinion, though the correctness turns in part on whether the court of appeals accurately reviewed the district court’s decision under the appropriate standard of review
Practice Tip
When challenging intervention in ongoing litigation, preserve objections early and consistently—participating in mediation, filing competing claims, or acquiescing in litigation over the merits can constitute waiver of procedural 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.