Utah’s Rules of Professional Conduct turn on what a lawyer knows, and they say knowledge “may be inferred from circumstances.” The circumstances here are three papers the firm signed or handled, with dates. Nothing on this page is a complaint to anyone.
PRIMARY SOURCEUtah’s Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice as read October 22, 2026; the Salem docket, 260200029, entry 12 and entries 16 to 19; BAM v. Schneider, D. Utah 2:26-cv-00593, entry 33; Minnesota franchise file 9006, the April 16 letter and the September amendment, as filed.
CONFIRMEDApril 21, 2026: Wm. Kelly Nash of Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar signed BAM’s acceptance of service in Salem, having “received readable copies of the summons and complaint prior to signing.” The court’s index dates that complaint March 27.
CONFIRMEDAugust 27, 2026: Nash and Justin Rich moved in BAM v. Schneider “for entry of a Permanent Injunction” against Bryan Mansell. The docket shows no order on it through October 13, on a record refreshed October 21.
CONFIRMEDSeptember 9, 2026: the amendment that names Manal Z. Hall of the same firm as its contact, with the firm’s document numbers on its pages, dates the Salem suit “On April 16, 2026,” the date of the firm’s own April letter, and says BAM “acquired” a “permanent injunction against Mr. Mansell.” Minnesota made it effective September 18.
UNRESOLVEDWhich lawyer drafted or reviewed the amendment’s Item 3, and what that lawyer knew. No public record says.
“‘Knowingly,’ ‘known’ or ‘knows’ denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question,” the definitions say. “A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances” (Rule 3-1.0). Rule 3-4.1: “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.” Its comment reaches a client’s words that a lawyer passes along: “A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false” (Rule 3-4.1). Rule 3-8.4 makes it misconduct to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” (Rule 3-8.4). The comment to Rule 3-1.2 names the act: a lawyer must avoid “drafting or delivering documents that the lawyer knows are fraudulent” (Rule 3-1.2, comment 10). The rules define fraud as conduct with “a purpose to deceive,” and nothing on this page says anyone had one. A Utah lawyer carries the rules everywhere, “regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs” (Rule 3-8.5); a filing sent from Salt Lake City to St. Paul is a Utah question.
| The fact | The record | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| The firm had the complaint | Its acceptance of service, signed April 21, filed April 28. | CONFIRMED |
| The firm had the filing date beside the omission | The August 14 motion, its redline and paragraph 113, served on counsel of record. | CONFIRMED |
| The firm knew no injunction had been entered | Its own August 27 motion asks the court to enter one. The docket shows none. | CONFIRMED |
| The firm’s hand is on the amendment | Hall as contact; the firm’s document numbers on its pages; April 16 is the date of the firm’s own letter. | CONFIRMED |
| Who wrote Item 3 of the amendment, and what that lawyer knew | No public record says. | UNRESOLVED |
That last row is the whole question. Rules 3-4.1 and 3-8.4 reach the lawyer who makes or passes along a statement knowing it is false, not a firm as a building. The rules answer that too: a partner or supervising lawyer is responsible for another lawyer’s violation when the partner “knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action” (Rule 3-5.1), and a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation that “raises a substantial question as to that legal professional’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness” must “inform the appropriate professional authority” (Rule 3-8.3). That duty belongs to lawyers. Whether any of this meets the rules is a question for Utah’s Office of Professional Conduct, as it was for the biography. The two sentences are still on file in Minnesota and Wisconsin, where a buyer reads them as true.
The fair reading, and its limit. The amendment’s statements are BAM’s, certified by its president; a contact line and a document number show that a firm handled a filing, not who wrote a sentence in it. April 16 is the date of the firm’s own letter, which reads as a date lifted from a file rather than chosen. “Acquired” can be read as the stipulated injunction the parties agreed to on August 27 and were waiting for a judge to sign. A firm is many hands, the rules require the actual knowledge of the lawyer who made or delivered the statement, and no public record names that lawyer. Minnesota accepted the amendment, and no court or disciplinary authority has found anything. The limit is the sequence: the firm had the complaint by April 21, had the filing date beside the omission by August 14, and asked for the injunction on August 27; the amendment that followed gives the other date and calls the injunction acquired; and the rules say knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.
Sources. Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice: Rule 3-1.0, 3-1.2, 3-4.1, 3-5.1, 3-8.3, 3-8.4 and 3-8.5, read October 22, 2026. BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc., Utah Business and Chancery Court No. 260200029: the court’s index read October 20, 2026; entry 12, the acceptance of service, dated April 21 and filed April 28, 2026; entries 16 to 19 of August 14, 2026 (October 20). BAM Franchising, Inc. v. Schneider, D. Utah No. 2:26-cv-00593, entry 33 of August 27, 2026 and the docket through entry 49, at CourtListener, refreshed October 21, 2026 (October 21). Minnesota Department of Commerce, franchise file 9006, at CARDS: the April 16, 2026 letter and renewal application, the September 9, 2026 amendment application and marked document, the deficiency notice and order of September 18 (September 25, October 22). Dentons, biography of Wm. Kelly Nash, read October 20 and October 22, 2026 (October 21). Earlier on the rules: June 28. The right of reply is open to everyone named here.