On his Dentons résumé, BAM’s lawyer claims “a permanent injunction respecting various unlawful activities” against a man his client paid and apologized to. No court has entered one.
Between June 22 and October 20, Wm. Kelly Nash’s firm biography gained a named client, BAM Franchising, Inc. The injunction in its entry is a proposed order his own office filed on August 27, unsigned since. BAM’s certified September amendment told state regulators the same thing, through the same office.
PRIMARY SOURCEThe biography as captured June 22 and October 20, 2026, the page and both texts served below; the docket in BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593, read October 20 and again October 21; the August 27 motion and proposed orders; Utah Rules 3-7.1 and 3-1.6 and Minnesota Statutes 80C.13 and 80C.17 as printed October 21.
REFUTED“Including a permanent injunction respecting various unlawful activities.” No order on the docket as read October 21; its last entry is 49, of October 13. The proposed order never uses the word “unlawful,” and the motion carrying it says the settlement was made “without admitting any fault, liability or wrongdoing of any kind.”
CONSISTENTWith BAM’s September 9 disclosure amendment, which told regulators BAM had “acquired his claims against the former franchisee as well as a permanent injunction against Mr. Mansell” as of August 31, graded REFUTED on September 25. Justin Rich of Dentons filed the motion; Manal Hall of Dentons is the Minnesota filing’s contact; the biography is Nash’s. One office, three documents, one unsigned order.
What changed
The June 22 capture lists forty-three matters under “Experience,” twenty-seven under a client’s name and sixteen under “Confidential Client.” The October 20 page lists forty-four; the new one is third. The opening was rewritten, “Mr. Nash” becoming “Kelly” and “trial lawyer” added, with a new last line: “He heads the firm’s Alternative Dispute Resolution group, and serves as a mediator and arbitrator of civil disputes.” Nothing was removed.
“BAM Franchising, Inc.: Successfully mediated a resolution of a state civil RICO claim against a third party LEGO collector, which stemmed from an alleged viral social media extortion campaign relating to a former franchisee’s unauthorized consignment arrangement, including a permanent injunction respecting various unlawful activities.”
Dentons, biography of Wm. Kelly Nash, “Experience,” as the page read on October 20, 2026. Not on the page on June 22.
The entry, phrase by phrase
| The biography says | The record says | Reported | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| “BAM Franchising, Inc.” | His client. Nash is counsel of record for BAM Franchising, Inc. on this docket and in the Salem case. It is named; sixteen other entries on the page say “Confidential Client.” | Their counsel | CONFIRMED |
| “a state civil RICO claim” | A verified complaint filed May 27 in Utah’s Fourth District by BAM, Ammon and Matthew McNeff, Josh Johnson, Brandon Best and Baker Bricks, against four defendants. Removed to federal court June 26 by the Schneider defendants, with Mansell’s consent. Pending there against all four on paper: Mansell’s dismissal waits on the same unsigned order. | June 28 | CONFIRMED |
| “a third party LEGO collector” | Bryan Mansell, whose family’s collection sat in the store on a written consignment that BAM later filed as its own Exhibit A. Ammon McNeff’s verified complaint pleaded him into the alleged enterprise. The Keizer police file records a detective’s conclusion that BAM knew whose sets they were. | August 7 | AS SWORN |
| “an alleged viral social media extortion campaign” | The claims against Benjamin Schneider, Reckless Ben LLC and Victor Nguyen. Their special motion to dismiss was filed September 18; on October 13 the court scheduled its supplement, on a stipulation Nash filed himself. Nothing is decided. | September 18 | PENDING |
| “a former franchisee’s unauthorized consignment arrangement” | By BAM’s own paper. Its disclosure document told buyers from at least 2014 that a franchisee “may also offer” consignment services; the current franchise agreement still says “Franchisee may also offer: consignment services”; the arrangement is Exhibit A to BAM’s complaint; and in August BAM “acquired his claims against the former franchisee,” claims that exist only because of it. That former franchisee is suing BAM in Utah’s Business and Chancery Court. Nash is BAM’s counsel of record there. | October 5 | CONTRADICTED |
| “Successfully mediated a resolution” | On the terms. On August 19 BAM said it had paid the Mansell family, was dismissing its case against him with prejudice and had issued “an unqualified apology,” its first in twenty-one months of statements catalogued here. Its town hall called it “a mediated settlement with the family”; its amendment said the action “is in on-going mediation.” | August 19 | SILENT |
| “including a permanent injunction respecting various unlawful activities” | The parties asked for a consent injunction on August 27, entry 33. No order has issued; the docket runs to entry 49, of October 13. The proposed order is a stipulated no-conduct list, threats, doxxing, trespass, impersonation, staged confrontations, with a paragraph preserving Mansell’s “investigative journalism.” It never says “unlawful.” The motion says the settlement was reached “without admitting any fault, liability or wrongdoing of any kind.” | August 27 | REFUTED |
The docket
Entry 33 of August 27 is a joint motion by the six plaintiffs and Mansell, captioned “Joint MOTION for Permanent Injunction; MOTION for Dismissal of Party as to Bryan Mansell.” The clerk corrected its event type the next day. On September 2 the court extended the anti-SLAPP deadline on a caption that still named Mansell. On September 18 the defendants filed that motion. On October 9 Nash filed a stipulation to supplement it; on October 13 Judge David Barlow signed the order, entry 49, the docket’s last. Nothing grants entry 33. Nash is counsel of record for all six plaintiffs. Every entry is noticed to him, and entry 48 went in under his own name eleven days before the biography was captured with the injunction in it. The case’s only injunction is the preliminary one of July 7, which binds all four defendants, Mansell among them.
A permanent injunction is a court’s act. This one has been claimed twice, in a disclosure document BAM certified to a state and on its lawyer’s résumé, and signed nowhere.
One firm, one claim
The firm is Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar, Salt Lake City. Justin Rich of that office filed the August 27 motion. The September 9 amendment that told Minnesota the injunction had been “acquired” names Manal Hall of the same office as its contact, as reported September 25; the same Item of that amendment misdated the Salem suit by three weeks, as reported October 20. The biography is Nash’s. He is counsel of record for BAM in the Salem case as well as this one.
Minnesota’s franchise act, under which that amendment was filed, says: “No person may make or cause to be made any untrue statement of a material fact in any application, notice, report, or other document filed with the commissioner.” The amendment calls the Schneider action “material to the decision to enter into a Bricks and Minifigs franchise agreement.” A violator is “liable to the franchisee or subfranchisor who may sue for damages caused thereby, for rescission.” Whether the injunction sentence is such a statement is a question for the Department of Commerce and for anyone who bought a franchise on that document. The résumé answers a narrower one. The sentence was not a stranger’s misreading of a docket: the office named on the filing is the office that filed the motion, and its litigator of record now makes the claim in his own name.
The rule
Utah’s rule on what lawyers may say about their own services, Rule 3-7.1 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, in force since May 1, 2024, governs “all communications about a lawyer’s services,” a firm website among them.
“A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it: (1) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading; (2) is likely to create an unjustified or unreasonable expectation about results the lawyer can achieve or has achieved”
Rule 3-7.1(a), as printed from the Utah Courts rules site on October 21, 2026. Its second comment adds: “Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by this Rule.”
The rule has no state-of-mind element: a communication is false or misleading, or it is not. What the lawyer knew is on the docket. Whether a firm website meets the rule is a question for Utah’s Office of Professional Conduct, and nothing on this page is a complaint.
A second rule explains the sixteen “Confidential Client” entries around BAM’s. Rule 3-1.6(a) bars a lawyer from revealing “information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent,” and its commentary reads that to cover “all information relating to the representation, whatever its source.” BAM is named. On the ordinary reading, BAM agreed to this account of its case under its own name.
The fair reading, and its limit. A firm biography is marketing, written by the lawyer about his own work. “Successfully mediated a resolution” is a fair name for a settlement his client wanted; the consent injunction was agreed by both sides and waits on a signature; “state civil RICO claim” is true of where the claim was born; naming a public client is ordinary, and lawyers compress. Nothing here says the entry was written to mislead, and nothing here is a complaint to anyone. The limit is three words. “Permanent injunction” exists when a court enters one. “Unlawful” is laid on a settlement his own motion says admits no fault. And “resolution” describes a case in which the client paid and apologized to the man it had sworn into a racketeering enterprise, and still pursues the rest.
Sources. Dentons, biography of Wm. Kelly Nash, captured June 22, 2026 (text) and October 20, 2026 (text; the page as captured). BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, No. 2:26-cv-00593 (D. Utah), docket as read October 20, 2026, entries 33 to 49; the August 27 joint motion and proposed orders. BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc., Utah Business and Chancery Court No. 260200029, the October 20 notice of appearance (entry 25) and its certificate of service, as read October 20; the case as reported October 20. Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, Rule 3-7.1 (as printed October 21, 2026) and Rule 3-1.6 (as printed). Minnesota Statutes 80C.13 (as printed) and 80C.17 (as printed). Earlier: the page on their counsel, one lawyer, both sides, the apology, the joint motion, the September 2 order, the amendment, the town hall. The right of reply is open to everyone named here.