Utah Supreme Court
Can law firms purchase malpractice claims against them at execution sales? Snow v. Tanasse Explained
Summary
Snow Nuffer law firm obtained a default judgment against client Tanasse for unpaid fees, then purchased Tanasse’s pending malpractice claim against the firm for $10,000 at a sheriff’s execution sale. The Utah Supreme Court held that while malpractice claims are generally subject to execution, public policy prohibits law firms from purchasing such claims against themselves.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court addressed a novel question in Snow v. Tanasse: whether a law firm can purchase a legal malpractice claim against itself at an execution sale to satisfy a judgment for unpaid fees. The court’s ruling establishes important boundaries between creditor rights and public policy protections in the attorney-client relationship.
Background and Facts
Snow Nuffer law firm represented Tanasse and Club St. George in a lease dispute but withdrew due to nonpayment of approximately $14,000 in fees. The firm obtained a default judgment against Tanasse for the unpaid fees. After the clients suffered a $100,000 wrongful eviction judgment, they sued Snow Nuffer for legal malpractice. The law firm then executed on Tanasse’s assets to satisfy its judgment, purchasing the pending malpractice claim against itself for $10,000 at a sheriff’s auction.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three issues: (1) whether legal malpractice claims are assignable, (2) whether such claims can be reached through involuntary transfer by execution, and (3) whether public policy prevents law firms from purchasing malpractice claims against themselves at execution sales.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed that legal malpractice claims, as choses in action, are generally subject to execution under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69(f). However, the court reversed on public policy grounds, holding that law firms cannot purchase malpractice claims against themselves. The court identified two problems: (1) denying the client’s right to trial under Article I, Section 11 of the Utah Constitution, and (2) preventing fair determination of the claim’s value since the purchasing firm has incentives toward under-valuation.
Practice Implications
This decision protects the attorney-client relationship and public confidence in the legal profession while still allowing law firms to pursue legitimate fee collection through other means. The ruling ensures that clients retain access to courts for malpractice claims even when they owe their former attorneys money.
Case Details
Case Name
Snow v. Tanasse
Citation
1999 UT 49
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 970079
Date Decided
May 18, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
Law firms may not purchase legal malpractice claims against them at execution sales as this violates public policy, even though malpractice claims are generally subject to involuntary transfer through execution.
Standard of Review
Correction of error for questions of law
Practice Tip
When representing clients in fee collection matters, be aware that execution sales cannot be used to acquire and extinguish malpractice claims against your firm, as this violates public policy regardless of the debtor’s other available assets.
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.