Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler v. Young - Utah Supreme Court
94 P.3d 179 (2004)
The duty of loyalty requires a fiduciary to act in the best interests of the party to whom they owe this duty. This includes the obligation to avoid self dealing and competition.
In Prince, Yeates and Geldzahler versus Young, we explore a lawyer's duty of loyalty to his firm. In nineteen ninety five, Robert Young joined the law firm of Prince, Yeates, and Geldzahler as an associate attorney. At the time, the firm told Young that his salary would likely increase each year and that the typical partnership track was two to three years.
In nineteen ninety six, Young began representing Charles Krauss in a personal injury case involving a helicopter crash and took on a separate lawsuit for the helicopter's owner, Mountain West Helicopters. Both cases were owner, Mountain West Helicopters.
Both cases were contingency fee based, and Young, the only lawyer at the firm working on them, dedicated most of his time to these cases.
In nineteen ninety eight, Young asked the firm how the contingent fee in the Krause case would be divided. The firm, agreeing to be fair and equitable, tentatively agreed to give Young one third of the fee while keeping the remainder. However, Young never formally accepted the arrangement.
In June nineteen ninety nine, Young learned that Krauss had settled his case and that the contingency fee would be six hundred fifty thousand dollars. The next day, without telling the firm about the settlement, Young countered the firm's earlier proposed contingency fee split with additional conditions. The firm didn't respond to Young's counter proposal.
Young informed the firm that he would resign if they couldn't reach an agreement. The firm accepted his resignation.
Afterward, the firm discovered that Young had been secretly representing additional clients using the firm's resources and keeping the fees for himself.
The firm sued Young for breach of fiduciary duty. Young counterclaimed for breach of contract.
The firm moved for summary judgment on Young's counterclaim, and both parties moved for summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The court denied the firm's motions, but granted Young's, finding that an employee owes no fiduciary duty of non competition to his employer.
After a trial, the jury awarded Young two hundred eighty thousand dollars.
The firm appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/prince-yeates-geldzahler-v-young
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/prince-yeates-geldzahler-v-young
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler v. Young - Utah Supreme Court
94 P.3d 179 (2004)
The duty of loyalty requires a fiduciary to act in the best interests of the party to whom they owe this duty. This includes the obligation to avoid self dealing and competition.
In Prince, Yeates and Geldzahler versus Young, we explore a lawyer's duty of loyalty to his firm. In nineteen ninety five, Robert Young joined the law firm of Prince, Yeates, and Geldzahler as an associate attorney. At the time, the firm told Young that his salary would likely increase each year and that the typical partnership track was two to three years.
In nineteen ninety six, Young began representing Charles Krauss in a personal injury case involving a helicopter crash and took on a separate lawsuit for the helicopter's owner, Mountain West Helicopters. Both cases were owner, Mountain West Helicopters.
Both cases were contingency fee based, and Young, the only lawyer at the firm working on them, dedicated most of his time to these cases.
In nineteen ninety eight, Young asked the firm how the contingent fee in the Krause case would be divided. The firm, agreeing to be fair and equitable, tentatively agreed to give Young one third of the fee while keeping the remainder. However, Young never formally accepted the arrangement.
In June nineteen ninety nine, Young learned that Krauss had settled his case and that the contingency fee would be six hundred fifty thousand dollars. The next day, without telling the firm about the settlement, Young countered the firm's earlier proposed contingency fee split with additional conditions. The firm didn't respond to Young's counter proposal.
Young informed the firm that he would resign if they couldn't reach an agreement. The firm accepted his resignation.
Afterward, the firm discovered that Young had been secretly representing additional clients using the firm's resources and keeping the fees for himself.
The firm sued Young for breach of fiduciary duty. Young counterclaimed for breach of contract.
The firm moved for summary judgment on Young's counterclaim, and both parties moved for summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The court denied the firm's motions, but granted Young's, finding that an employee owes no fiduciary duty of non competition to his employer.
After a trial, the jury awarded Young two hundred eighty thousand dollars.
The firm appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/prince-yeates-geldzahler-v-young
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/prince-yeates-geldzahler-v-young
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
