When does a criminal malpractice claim accrue in Utah? Thomas v. Hillyard Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Thomas v. Hillyard clarifies a critical timing issue for criminal malpractice claims, establishing when the statute of limitations begins to run for clients seeking to sue their former criminal defense attorneys.

Background and Facts

Matthew Thomas was convicted of two felony counts of aggravated sexual abuse in 2012. He alleged his trial attorney, Lyle Hillyard, provided deficient representation by failing to object to inadmissible testimony, failing to request key jury instructions, and failing to object to prejudicial prosecutorial statements. Thomas hired new counsel, successfully moved to arrest judgment based on ineffective assistance of counsel, was granted a new trial, and ultimately pled guilty to three misdemeanors in 2014. He sued Hillyard for malpractice in 2017, but the district court granted summary judgment, finding the claim time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was when Thomas’s malpractice claim accrued. Hillyard argued it accrued when the jury returned its guilty verdict in 2012, making the 2017 lawsuit untimely. Thomas contended the claim did not accrue until he obtained a better result through the plea agreement in 2014, or alternatively, when he was granted a new trial in 2013.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, adopting the reasoning from Clark v. Deloitte & Touche LLP and holding that criminal malpractice claims do not accrue until the underlying criminal action has concluded and no appeal of right is available. The court rejected both “one-track” approaches requiring successful post-conviction relief and “two-track” approaches allowing simultaneous proceedings. The court also established that the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of Post-Conviction Remedies Act claims, provided they are filed before the four-year malpractice limitation period expires.

Practice Implications

This decision provides clarity for criminal malpractice accrual while maintaining flexibility for defendants. Practitioners should note that the court overruled inconsistent precedent from Jensen v. Young to establish uniformity across malpractice contexts. The decision allows criminal defendants to pursue malpractice claims without first exhausting post-conviction remedies, though practical challenges in proving causation and damages may remain significant obstacles to success.