Utah Court of Appeals
Can a consultation fee create an attorney-client relationship in Utah? Rusk v. Harstad Explained
Summary
Rusk sued attorney Harstad and her law firm for legal malpractice after paying for a consultation. The district court granted summary judgment, finding no attorney-client relationship existed based on undisputed facts showing the law firm explicitly declined representation.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether paying a consultation fee can establish an attorney-client relationship sufficient to support a legal malpractice claim in Rusk v. Harstad.
Background and Facts
Zachary Rusk paid $200 for a consultation with attorney Kass Harstad regarding potential legal action against his former employer. Prior to the consultation, Rusk understood he was paying only for preliminary advice and that the law firm would determine whether to represent him afterward. Following the consultation, Rusk emailed stating he believed they should “part ways,” and Harstad confirmed by letter that the firm would not represent him. When Rusk later suspected Harstad might be assisting his former employer, she reiterated that the firm did not and would not represent either party.
Key Legal Issues
The threshold issue in any legal malpractice claim is whether an attorney-client relationship existed. Utah law requires four elements: (1) an attorney-client relationship; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages. For an implied attorney-client relationship, the client must have a reasonable subjective belief that representation exists.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding the undisputed facts showed no reasonable basis for believing an attorney-client relationship existed. The communications explicitly stated the firm would not represent Rusk, he understood he was paying only for consultation, and he later filed pro se litigation and sought pro bono counsel—actions inconsistent with believing he had representation.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that attorneys can limit consultations without creating representation obligations. Clear written communication declining representation, combined with the client’s understanding of the limited scope, provides strong protection against malpractice claims. The case also demonstrates the importance of proper preservation of error—Rusk’s equitable estoppel argument was rejected as raised for the first time on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
Rusk v. Harstad
Citation
2017 UT App 27
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20161014-CA
Date Decided
February 9, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
No attorney-client relationship existed where communications clearly stated the law firm would not represent the client and the client understood he was paying only for a preliminary consultation.
Standard of Review
Correctness for conclusions of law, including whether there are material fact issues; facts and reasonable inferences viewed in light most favorable to non-moving party
Practice Tip
Always document in writing when declining representation after a consultation to avoid potential malpractice claims based on implied attorney-client relationships.
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.