Should state pay ex-AG Shurtleff's $1M in legal bills? State judge will decide

West Jordan • A judge is poised to decide whether the state should have to pay $1.1 million in legal bills racked up by former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff during the two years he was being prosecuted on public corruption charges.

Shurtleff’s case was dismissed in 2016 on the prosecutor’s motion — a request that Shurtleff’s attorneys claim came at the direction of current Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, even though his office was not handling the case.

Reyes’ office denies he ever meddled in the case and says state law prohibits reimbursement because Shurtleff wasn’t in office when the matter was dismissed.

Third District Judge Bruce Lubeck heard arguments from both sides in a West Jordan courtroom on Tuesday, then took the matter under advisement, saying he would issue a written ruling within several days.

Shurtleff was charged in 2014 with felony and misdemeanor crimes stemming from allegations of bribery and corruption when he was at the helm of Utah’s top law enforcement office for three terms.

The charges were dismissed last year at the behest of Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings, who was asked to handle the case because Reyes believed it would be imprudent for his office to prosecute its former leader.

In his motion to dismiss the case, Rawlings cited allegations of investigative misconduct by state and federal officers and problems with obtaining evidence from the FBI. He also referenced a cooperation agreement that would see Shurtleff provide information and testimony about former Utah Attorney General John Swallow; former U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brent Ward, all of whom Rawlings was looking at as part of a wider public corruption investigation.

Under the cooperation deal, Shurtleff’s attorneys say Rawlings agreed not to oppose motions they filed seeking dismissal.

“He recognized and has explicitly acknowledged that there was no path forward,” Shurtleff attorney Rod Parker said Tuesday.

The trouble came, Parker contends, when Reyes, who was supposed to be “walled off” from the handling of the case, intervened and directed Rawlings to block Shurtleff’s motion to dismiss with his own request to throw the case out. That ethically questionable effort, according to Parker, was a tactic to deny reimbursement of fees.

Rawlings also deliberately mentioned his cooperation agreement in court papers seeking dismissal in order to preserve Shurtleff’s ability to seek legal fees, Parker said.

“It’s not simply a motion to dismiss, it’s a capitulation,” Parker said, adding that Rawlings would testify to those facts were the case to proceed to trial.

Arguing for the state, Assistant Attorney General David Wolf shied away from any allegations of misconduct by Reyes, but said it’s not clear any cooperation agreement had been finalized.

“The parties reached an agreement to try to agree to terms at a later time,” Wolf said. “This agreement to agree does not represent a meeting of the minds.”

Wolf also said Utah law allows state officials or employees to recoup legal expenses only when a defendant is still in office — and only when a defendant is acquitted by a jury or if a defense motion results in charges being dropped. The law does not apply when the dismissal is secured by a prosecutor, he said.

Wolf said it is clear that 3rd District Judge Elizabeth Hruby-Mills sided with Rawlings, not Shurtleff, when dismissing the case.

“That manner of dismissal precluded [Shurtleff’s] ability to claim attorneys fees.” Wolf said. “He doesn’t qualify as an officer or an employee.”

Watching from the courtroom gallery on Tuesday was Swallow, Shurtleff’s successor and onetime co-defendant.

Swallow’s case, which was handled by the Salt Lake County district attorney’s office, went to trial and a jury last March acquitted him on all counts.

Reyes’ office has similarly denied Swallow’s demand that his legal fees — totaling about $1.5 million — be paid.

No negotiations or discussions of a resolution are currently underway, Swallow said after the hearing.

“I was acquitted, I think there is no question that I‘m entitled to my attorneys fees,” Swallow said after the hearing. “I’m hoping cooler heads will prevail and I won’t be forced to sue.”