Utah Court of Appeals
Do professional conduct rules apply to pro se attorneys in Utah? Bohman Aggregates v. Gilbert Explained
Summary
After a pro se attorney-party violated Rule 3.4(e) by asserting personal knowledge and opining on witness credibility during opening and closing statements, the trial court granted Appellees’ motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that professional conduct rules apply to self-represented attorneys and that the violations warranted a new trial.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed whether the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct apply to attorneys representing themselves in Bohman Aggregates v. Gilbert. The court’s decision provides critical guidance for attorneys considering pro se representation.
Background and Facts
Attorney Brent Bohman represented himself in a contract dispute where he was also a key witness regarding a crucial meeting with the opposing party. Despite pre-trial warnings about Rule 3.4(e) violations, Attorney Bohman delivered opening and closing statements filled with first-person narrative, personal opinions about witness credibility, and assertions of personal knowledge. He called the opposing party “an absolute crook” and stated he was “dealing with” someone dishonest, among other problematic statements.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(e) applies to pro se attorney-litigants. This rule prohibits lawyers from asserting “personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness” and from stating “a personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness.” The trial court found violations and granted a new trial under Rule 59(a)(1) for irregularities in the proceedings.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that professional conduct rules contain no exception for pro se attorneys. The court explained that Rule 3.4 already accounts for attorney-witnesses by permitting personal knowledge assertions “except when testifying as a witness.” This exception reinforces the prohibition at all other times. The court noted that allowing pro se attorneys to bypass these rules would permit “unsworn, unchecked testimony” that exploits the attorney’s influential role.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that Utah attorneys cannot escape professional responsibilities by representing themselves. Pro se attorneys must maintain the distinction between their roles as advocate and witness, limiting personal knowledge assertions to sworn testimony subject to cross-examination. Trial courts have broad discretion to grant new trials for Rule 3.4 violations that compromise trial fairness.
Case Details
Case Name
Bohman Aggregates v. Gilbert
Citation
2021 UT App 35
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20190867-CA
Date Decided
April 1, 2021
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Utah Rules of Professional Conduct apply to pro se attorney-litigants, and violations of Rule 3.4(e) prohibiting assertion of personal knowledge and credibility opinions constitute irregularities justifying a new trial under Rule 59.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal standards applied; abuse of discretion for the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial
Practice Tip
When representing yourself as an attorney, clearly distinguish between referencing sworn testimony and making new factual assertions by using phrases like ‘the evidence shows’ rather than first-person narrative.
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.