Author: Jennifer Weaver

Judicial Council Responds to Jury Selection Legislation Affecting Utah Courtrooms

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

Salt Lake City, Utah — The Judicial Council is releasing the following statement regarding S.R.J. 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Jury Selection.

Jury service is a vital civic responsibility, and the integrity of that service depends on careful, thorough, and robust jury selection processes.  How jury selection is conducted directly affects the confidence that parties place in jury verdicts — making it essential that the processes be approached with deliberation and care.

During the 2026 legislative session, the method of jury selection — whether conducted in person or virtually — has been the subject of debate (see S.J.R. 10). Those discussions have made clear that any jury selection system must strike a balance among multiple interests: ensuring selection of a fair and impartial jury, respecting the interests of litigants in choosing how selection is conducted, minimizing unnecessary burdens on potential jurors, and administering efficient judicial operations.  That balance is especially critical in felony criminal proceedings, where the stakes for victims, the accused, and the public are most pronounced.

To that end, the Judicial Council will coordinate with the presiding judge in each judicial district to ensure that virtual jury selection (where used) is complemented by an equally effective, robust, and accessible in-person jury selection process for certain felony criminal cases.

CONTACT
Administrative Office of the Courts
Tania Mashburn
Director of Communications
801-712-4545
taniam@utcourts.gov

MORE BLOGS

Last-Minute Changes to HB 366 Threaten Judicial Stability

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY, March 4, 2026 – With two days left in Utah’s 67th Legislative Session, the Utah State Bar is concerned with the substitutions to HB 366 – Judicial Modifications that revive the constitutional court originally proposed in HB 392. The Bar’s primary concern centers on the “trigger” mechanism within the bill. If a court strikes down the state’s three-judge panel system, this new judicial structure will automatically take effect. The Bar warns that such a move creates instant instability in the rule of law by reshaping how constitutional disputes are heard and altering how municipal prosecutions are assigned in district court. These changes could adversely affect Utah families and small businesses seeking timely and fair access to the courts.

“Exactly one month ago, the Utah State Bar hosted a press conference at the Utah State Capitol to address a growing number of legislative proposals that would transform Utah’s judicial system, including how judges are nominated and retained,” said Bar Executive Director Elizabeth Wright. “While we appreciate the legislators who have engaged in dialogue with us, we are deeply concerned that these latest proposals threaten judicial stability.”

The second substitute to HB 366 repeals and reenacts the current three-judge panel statute and imposes a $1,500 filing fee for a notice to convene a three-judge panel. This judicial shift is fundamentally flawed for several reasons:

  • Unconstitutional Structure: The Utah Constitution defines a “district court” as a single judge; a three-judge panel effectively creates a new court structure not authorized by the state’s founding document.
  • Financial Barrier: Imposing a $1,500 filing fee specifically for a notice to convene a three-judge panel creates a direct financial hurdle for families or small businesses involved in constitutional litigation.
  • “Forum Shopping” and Delays: The proposed law allows the state to bypass judges who have issued unfavorable rulings in high-profile cases.
  • Lack of Oversight: The bill attempts to make the transfer of cases immune to legal challenge, which violates the separation of powers and denies due process.
  • Separation of Powers: Creating a new judicial body that is triggered specifically by ongoing litigation raises serious concerns about political interference in the branch of government meant to be impartial.

“Utah families and businesses rely on predictable, impartial courts,” said Bar President Kim Cordova. “Allowing those decisions to be revisited through a political process could delay resolution of constitutional questions and create instability in the rule of law.”

Transformations of this magnitude within HB 366 require a thorough public vetting and careful constitutional analysis to protect the structural neutrality of Utah’s courts. The Bar urges lawmakers to slow the process, allow for full public input, and conduct a comprehensive review of the long-term impact these measures will have on the state’s judicial system.

RELATED: UPDATED – Utah State Bar Position On Package of Bills Affecting Utah Courts

About the Utah State Bar
Established in 1931 and operating under the authority of the Utah Supreme Court, the Utah State Bar regulates and supports the legal profession in the state. With over 12,000 licensed attorneys, the Bar is committed to promoting a justice system that is accessible, understood, valued, and respected. Governed by a Commission of elected attorneys from Utah’s judicial districts, the Bar provides resources, education, and support to enhance the professional practice of its licensees and upholds the public’s trust in the legal system.

###

MORE BLOGS

UPDATED – Utah State Bar Position On Package of Bills Affecting Utah Courts

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

Upon recommendations from the Governmental Relations Committee and the Bar Commission assessing the bills’ impact on the administration of justice, judicial impartiality, and public confidence in the courts, the Utah State Bar has taken positions on the following bills using the “Keller-Pure” approach:

UPDATED 3-3-2026

Bill Sponsor Bill Summary Basis for Support or Opposition
HB 94 – Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments Rep. Grant Miller The bill amends provisions governing criminal accounts receivable to standardize court procedures related to outstanding financial obligations in criminal cases. By codifying existing practices and clarifying payment processes and related court authority, the legislation ensures more consistent treatment of individuals across jurisdictions and reduces procedural disparities. We support this bill because it promotes fairness, uniformity, and transparency within the criminal justice system. By clarifying and standardizing procedures statewide, the bill helps ensure similarly situated individuals are treated consistently, enhances judicial efficiency, and strengthens public confidence in the equitable administration of justice.
HB 260 – Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments Rep. Anthony Loubet The bill creates both civil and criminal penalties for individuals who practice law without a license, allows courts to award attorney fees and issue injunctions, and provides a three-year statute of limitations for related actions. It also ensures that people harmed by unauthorized practice can sue for damages. We support this bill as a necessary update to Utah’s unauthorized practice of law statutes that strengthen consumer protection while providing clear enforcement tools. We appreciate Rep. Loubet’s collaboration with the Bar’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee in developing this legislation.
HB 262 – Judicial Election Amendments Rep. Jason Kyle This bill increases the percentage of the vote required for judicial retention from 50% to 67%. This would be the highest retention percentage in the nation. A similar bill was run and defeated last legislative session. We oppose this bill because it threatens the independence of the judiciary by creating greater opportunities for disgruntled litigants or political interest groups to impact judicial retention elections. This adversely impacts public trust and confidence in a judiciary system that can be so easily politicized.
HB 274 – Sentencing Commission Amendments Rep. Mike Schultz This bill makes amendments to the Utah Sentencing Commission to remove all defense lawyers from the Commission and to add more members from law enforcement. We strongly oppose this bill because it politicizes the Utah Sentencing Commission by restructuring its membership in a way that favors law enforcement and partisan viewpoints. The commission’s credibility depends on a balanced, nonpartisan mix of perspectives, particularly between defense attorneys and prosecutors. Altering that balance risks undermining its integrity, objectivity, and public trust.
HB 366 S01 – Judicial Cases Distribution Amendments Rep. Jordan Teuscher This substitute bill modifies how certain municipal cases are assigned and heard in district court. It requires presiding judges to assign at least one district court judge to municipal cases filed, appealed, or transferred from municipal justice courts, establishes a ratio of no more than one judge per 500 municipal cases, and directs that hearings generally occur in the location closest to the municipality’s principal office unless good cause exists. The bill also repeals and reenacts provisions governing three-judge panels for constitutional challenges, establishes a filing fee for convening such panels, and creates a contingent Constitutional Court that would become operative if the current three-judge panel statute is invalidated. We oppose this bill due to concerns regarding its potential impact on the administration of justice and the orderly functioning of Utah’s courts. The bill directs how courts assign and locate certain municipal cases, which may interfere with established case-management authority and judicial discretion. In addition, the creation of a contingent Constitutional Court structure during ongoing litigation could introduce uncertainty into constitutional adjudication and affect the stability and predictability of court procedures.
HB 372 – Child Welfare Changes Rep. Karianne Lisonbee This bill makes changes to child welfare proceedings, including requirements related to guardian ad litem (GAL) representation, expressed interest versus best interest standards, and recording of interviews involving minors. The bill requires GALs to represent the expressed interests of minors beginning at age 8 and includes provisions related to recording interviews with children and GALs. These recordings may be reviewed by the judge and could become subject to broader public accessibility requirements under related legislation. We oppose this bill because it raises access to justice concerns and undermines the ability of minors to receive meaningful legal representation. Children aged 8 to 15 do not have the legal capacity to operate as litigants, yet the bill requires GALs to represent the child’s expressed interests rather than their best interests. This limits the ability of attorneys to exercise professional judgment and advocate effectively on behalf of vulnerable clients. Mandatory audio and video recording of interviews between children and GALs may have a chilling effect, discouraging children from speaking openly and honestly. These recordings also raise serious concerns regarding attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, and the secure storage and handling of sensitive information. Requiring attorneys to function primarily as spokespersons rather than advocates may discourage qualified attorneys from serving in these critical roles, ultimately harming children’s access to justice.
HB 392 2nd Substitute – District Court Amendments Rep. Matt MacPherson The bill would amend procedures for District Court panels by allowing parties to repeatedly disqualify or “strike” judges assigned to specially created panels and replace them with judges drawn from other judicial districts. This change would expand parties’ ability to reshape panel composition beyond existing recusal and disqualification standards. We reaffirm our opposition to this legislation because it invites strategic filings aimed at obtaining favorable judicial outcomes instead of impartial adjudication. By enabling repeated strikes of judges and substituting panel members from other districts, the proposal risks excessive motions practice, undermines judicial efficiency, and erodes public confidence in fair and unbiased court proceedings.
HB 397 – Courtroom Audiovisual Modifications Rep. Mike L. Kohler This bill would require significant expansion of audiovisual capabilities in Utah courtrooms, carrying an estimated fiscal impact of approximately $15 million. We oppose this bill because decisions about what occurs inside courtrooms, such as recording, broadcasting, or public access, should be guided by the judiciary, not mandated by the Legislature. We are also concerned that expanded audiovisual access could expose sensitive proceedings, including family law and divorce cases, to inappropriate viewing, potentially allowing children or the general public to witness deeply personal matters. Beyond cost, the bill raises serious access-to-justice concerns and opens a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences for privacy, due process, and the fair administration of justice.
HB 424 – Judicial Nomination Amendments Rep. Jason Kyle The bill would revise Utah’s judicial selection process by authorizing the Governor to appoint individuals to judicial vacancies even if they have not been nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission established under Utah Constitution Article VIII, Section 8. This change would eliminate the merit-based requirement that judicial nominees come from a vetted list recommended by the independent commission. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} We opposes HB 424 because it undermines Utah’s constitutionally established merit-based judicial selection system. The Judicial Nominating Commission was created to ensure judges are chosen based on fitness for office rather than partisan politics, and allowing appointments outside the commission’s nominations weakens judicial independence, erodes public confidence in fair and impartial courts, and concentrates appointment power in a single branch of government. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
HB 517 – Sensitive Materials Rep. Ken Ivory This bill includes provisions allowing courts to impose attorney fees on parties and their attorneys in certain legal challenges. Specifically, the bill creates a fee-shifting framework that applies to parties who challenge legislative action, including provisions affecting injunctive relief and actions brought in state or federal court. We only oppose the portion of the bill having to do with attorneys’ fees in lines 264 to 273, which creates a punitive attorney fee structure that could deter legitimate legal challenges to legislative action. The bill imposes fees on both the party and their attorney under a prevailing party standard. Existing rules already provide safeguards against frivolous litigation, making these additional penalties unnecessary. By increasing the financial risks associated with bringing constitutional or legal challenges, particularly in sensitive or complex cases, the bill may discourage attorneys and individuals from seeking judicial review. This creates a significant chilling effect and undermines access to justice by limiting the ability of courts to serve as a check on legislative action.
HB 540 – Judicial Transparency, Information Access, and Transition Amendments Rep. Logan Monson This bill requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to provide a live audiostream of public court proceedings and to create and publish audio recordings that remain permanently available to the public online. The bill also requires the Judicial Council to establish a centralized online database for public court records and to implement judicial financial disclosure requirements. Additionally, the bill prohibits law firms from hiring a judge for two years after the judge leaves office if the firm is representing “or intends to represent” a party in litigation against a state government entity. As it is currently written, we oppose this bill because mandatory public livestreaming and permanent audio recordings of court proceedings risk undermining the fairness, safety, and integrity of the judicial process. Public broadcasting may intimidate witnesses, discourage participation, and expose parties, victims, and jurors to harassment or retaliation, particularly in sensitive cases. Courts must retain discretion to balance transparency with their responsibility to protect participants and ensure impartial, fact-based decision-making.

We are also concerned that the bill’s two-year prohibition on certain post-judicial employment may discourage qualified attorneys from accepting judicial appointments and unnecessarily restrict judges’ ability to return to private practice. Existing judicial ethics rules already govern conflicts of interest and protect public trust, and additional categorical restrictions risk undermining judicial recruitment without improving the administration of justice.
HB 600 – Utah Supreme Court Referendum Amendments Rep. Matt MacPherson This bill creates a process to submit certain Utah Supreme Court decisions to the voters for approval or rejection when the Court determines that a state law is unconstitutional. It establishes procedures and timelines for referring those constitutional determinations to a statewide vote. We oppose this bill due to concerns regarding its potential impact on the administration of justice and the stability and finality of constitutional adjudication. Subjecting Supreme Court determinations of unconstitutionality to a referendum could delay resolution of constitutional disputes and create uncertainty for Utah families and businesses relying on clear and predictable court decisions.
HJR 005 – Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution – Judicial Nominations Rep. Jason Kyle This proposed constitutional amendment would change how judges are nominated in Utah. It would allow the Governor to request a list of nominees from the Judicial Nominating Commission, but also appoint any qualified candidate, even if they are not on that list. It also removes the current time limit for the Governor to make judicial appointments and eliminates the chief justice’s authority to fill a vacancy if the Governor does not act. If passed by the Legislature and approved by voters, these changes would become part of the Utah Constitution on January 1, 2027. We strongly oppose this constitutional amendment because it fundamentally weakens Utah’s merit-based judicial selection system, which is heralded as a model for the nation. It undermines judicial independence by granting the Governor unchecked authority to bypass nominating commissions and appoint judges of the executive’s choosing. By removing existing constitutional safeguards and concentrating appointment power in a single branch, the proposal invites politicization of the judiciary, erodes public confidence in fair and impartial courts, and could expose the state to costly and protracted litigation challenging its constitutionality.
HJR 013 – Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution – Judicial Retention Rep. Walt Brooks This proposed constitutional amendment related to judicial retention will allow the Legislature to initiate a special retention election if lawmakers determine that a judge is unfit or incompetent, giving the legislative branch a direct mechanism to challenge sitting judges outside the regular retention process. We strongly oppose this constitutional amendment because it injects the Legislature directly into the judicial retention process, threatening the separation of powers. Allowing lawmakers to trigger special retention elections based on subjective determinations of a judge’s fitness invites political retaliation, erodes public confidence in an impartial judiciary, and would likely expose the state to constitutional challenges and litigation over due process and legislative overreach.
HJR 21 – Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure Rep. Matt MacPherson The resolution primarily seeks to change how judges are assigned and managed in the Utah court system, specifically regarding three-judge district court panels. These panels are often convened for high-profile or high-stakes cases, such as constitutional challenges to state laws. We oppose this resolution because it fundamentally threatens judicial independence by allowing litigants to “strike” or disqualify judges from three-judge panels without cause, a move we believe encourages strategic “judge shopping” and invites political interference into the court system. We are deeply concerned that by enshrining these changes, which mirror those in the controversial HB 392, into the state constitution, the legislature is creating a mechanism where parties can effectively reshape a panel to secure a more favorable outcome rather than an impartial adjudication. Furthermore, we believe these rules will result in excessive motions and procedural delays, clogging our court system and undermining the public’s trust that legal disputes will be decided based on facts and the law rather than political pressure or tactical maneuvering.
HJR 026 – Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence to Address Machine-Generated Evidence Rep. Melissa G. Ballard HJR 026 proposes amendments to Utah’s Rules of Evidence to address the admissibility and treatment of machine-generated evidence in judicial proceedings. The resolution would modify existing evidentiary standards governing authentication and reliability determinations for outputs produced by automated systems and artificial intelligence technologies. We oppose HJR 026 because it risks altering evidentiary standards in a manner that could compromise judicial discretion and the careful, case-by-case reliability analysis required for emerging technologies. Broad or inflexible statutory directives governing machine-generated evidence may inadvertently weaken due process protections, create uncertainty in litigation, and shift complex technical determinations away from established judicial gatekeeping functions. Any reform to evidentiary rules involving artificial intelligence and automated systems should proceed cautiously, through the judiciary’s established rulemaking process, to preserve fairness, constitutional safeguards, and the integrity of Utah’s courts.
SB 57 – Judicial Resources Amendments Sen. Todd Weiler The bill increases the number of judges within Utah’s courts to address growing caseloads. We support this bill because expanding judicial resources is critical to maintaining an efficient and responsive court system.
SB 92 – Prosecution Amendments Sen. Chris Wilson The bill ensures that if a victim dies after a defendant has already been prosecuted for the initial assault, the state can still bring homicide charges without violating the rule against being tried twice for the same crime. We, alongside both defense and prosecution stakeholders, oppose this bill because it fundamentally weakens the rules of “legal finality” that protect Utahns from being prosecuted multiple times for the same conduct. Specifically, the bill would allow for additional charges to be filed even if the sentence for the original crime has already been completed, creating a system of permanent legal uncertainty. This shift would make the legal process significantly longer and more expensive, placing an undue burden on those who cannot afford a lawyer or must represent themselves. From an access to justice standpoint, the Bar supports stable legal protections that ensure cases have a clear ending, whereas SB 92 risks undermining fairness by allowing the state to reopen the past even after a person has fully satisfied their debt to society.
SB 134 – Appellate Court Amendments Sen. Chris Wilson This bill proposes judicial court amendments that would expand Utah’s appellate courts by increasing the number of judges on both the Utah Supreme Court (from five to seven justices) and the Utah Court of Appeals (from seven to nine judges). It also includes provisions to add additional district court judges in several counties to help address growing caseloads across the state’s judiciary. We generally support this bill for its recognition of growing judicial caseloads and its investment in expanding the courts, particularly at the trial and appellate levels, where most Utahns interact with the justice system. However, the Bar opposes the addition of two Supreme Court justices, given that the vast majority of cases involving everyday citizens are handled in lower courts, and the bill does not adequately address the need for corresponding support staff, such as judicial assistants and law clerks, necessary to ensure that new judges can operate effectively and efficiently.
SB 182 – Attorney Admission to Jail Facilities Amendments Sen. Stephanie Pitcher The bill amends statutes governing attorney access to jail facilities to clarify when and how attorneys may meet with incarcerated clients. It establishes consistent statewide standards to ensure timely and reliable access to counsel within detention facilities. We support this bill because it enhances access to justice by ensuring attorneys can meet with incarcerated clients during regular hours and arrange for meetings outside of regular business hours when necessary. The bill appropriately requires sheriffs to provide safe and private meeting spaces, reinforcing the attorney-client relationship and protecting constitutional rights.
SB 233 – Judicial Performance Evaluation Amendments Sen. Brady Brammer This bill proposes changes to the judicial performance evaluation process, altering how judges are reviewed and how that information may be used in retention decisions. We oppose this bill because, when considered as part of the larger legislative package, it increases political influence over judges by shifting evaluations toward subjective criteria that could be wielded as a tool for political retaliation rather than impartial assessment. By restructuring judicial performance evaluations without meaningful input from judges, court administrators, or legal professionals, the bill dismantles critical merit-based safeguards and threatens public confidence in an impartial judiciary.
SJR 5 – Constitutional Amendment — District Court Panels Sen. Todd Weiler The resolution proposes a constitutional amendment altering how District Court panels are formed and how judges may be reassigned or replaced. Like HB 392 and HJR 21, it includes overlapping language and concepts that would expand parties’ ability to strike and substitute judges on specially created panels and allow reassignment of judges from other districts beyond current constitutional and statutory norms. We oppose this resolution because it would embed in the Utah Constitution procedural changes similar to those in HB 392 that risk strategic manipulation of judicial panels. By institutionalizing broader judge strike and reassignment mechanisms, the resolution threatens to burden judicial resources, undermine impartial adjudication, and erode public confidence in the fairness and independence of the judiciary.
SJR 6 – Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Sen. Kirk Cullimore This joint resolution proposes amendments to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure related to the adjudication of certain constitutional claims and is intended to operate in conjunction with HB 366. The resolution modifies court procedures governing how constitutional challenges to state laws are processed and coordinated within Utah’s courts. We oppose this resolution due to concerns regarding its potential impact on the administration of justice and the stability of court procedures. Because the resolution modifies court rules related to constitutional litigation and operates in conjunction with HB 366 S01, it may introduce uncertainty into the adjudication of constitutional claims and affect the orderly functioning of the courts.
SJR 008 – Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University Sen. Brandy Brammer SJR 008 proposes directing a feasibility study and related planning efforts to explore the establishment of a law school at Utah Valley University. The resolution seeks to assess educational demand, resource requirements, and institutional needs associated with launching a new public law program in the state. We support SJR 008’s initiative to commission a comprehensive feasibility study for a law school at Utah Valley University and welcome the opportunity to participate as a resource throughout this process. Conducting a thorough, evidence-based examination of potential models, costs, and impacts will help inform policymakers, educators, and the public as they consider options for expanding legal education in Utah. Collaboration among stakeholders during the study phase can ensure that any future recommendations reflect broad input, uphold academic rigor, and serve the long-term interests of students and the legal profession.

How to contact your legislators

MORE BLOGS

PRESS RELEASE – Utah State Bar Takes Positions on Additional Legislation Affecting the Judiciary, Access to Justice

PRESS RELEASE – Package of Bills Would Remake Utah’s Judicial System

Utah State Bar Thanks Sen. Weiler for Withdrawing Judicial District Bill

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

The Utah State Bar extends its sincere appreciation to Sen. Todd Weiler for his decision not to move forward with Senate Bill 308-Judicial District Amendments during the 2026 legislative session.

Earlier this month, the Bar underscored its commitment to constructive engagement with lawmakers on proposals affecting the structure and function of Utah’s courts. Senator Weiler’s decision to pause S.B. 308 reflects that deliberative approach and affirms the value of stakeholder input when evaluating reforms with long-term implications for the justice system.

“We are grateful for Senator Weiler’s thoughtful consideration, and for the respectful dialogue he fostered with members of the Bar and the broader legal community,” said Bar President Kim Cordova. “Approaching judicial policy with care, consultation, and a focus on the public interest helps ensure that any changes strengthen access to justice and preserve fair and impartial courts for all Utahns.”

Cordova continued, “The structure and administration of our courts are matters of constitutional significance. Decisions affecting judicial districts, court resources, and the overall functioning of the judiciary warrant careful study and meaningful collaboration among invested stakeholders, including lawmakers, judges, attorneys, court administrators, and the public. When all voices are brought to the table, the result is a stronger policy and a justice system that better serves the families of Utah.”

The Bar reaffirms its commitment to support and protect a properly structured judiciary that exists to ensure that laws are applied fairly, constitutional rights are protected, and disputes are resolved based on facts and the rule of law. Preserving public trust in that system requires collaboration and respect for the constitutional balance of powers.

“We remain committed to working alongside Sen. Weiler, legislative leaders, and other stakeholders to ensure that any future proposals affecting the courts strengthen access to justice and uphold fair and impartial courts for all Utahns,” said Cordova. “We look forward to continued collaboration in service of a justice system that is accessible, effective, and worthy of the public’s confidence.”

MORE BLOGS

Insurance Coverage Issues for Lawyers in the Era of Generative AI

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

By Mark Bassingthwaighte, Esq.

I am one who can admit when I’m wrong. A few years ago, I was convinced the Metaverse was going to be a big deal, eventually even significantly impacting how lawyers would interact with their clientele. Oops. Got that one wrong. Well, at least for the time being. However, one thing I did get right was realizing how significant generative AI would become, how fast its adoption would be, and how much of its potential yet remains to be developed.

When it comes to generative AI the future is here and lawyers in firms of every shape and size are finding ever more creative ways to tap into its potential. Like me, these lawyers see the benefits of these technologies. Of course, as with all things tech related, lawyers also have an ethical obligation to explore and understand the associated risks of any tech deployed in a law practice. I suspect it’s because of what I do for a living, but as I see it, in order to fully understand the associated risks of deploying generative AI, one mustn’t forget to look into the associated insurance coverage implications. Thus, the following are a few key considerations lawyers should keep in mind when integrating generative AI into their practice.

1) Malpractice Involving AI Output

At the time of this writing, lawyers’ professional liability (LPL) policies typically do not exclude coverage for claims alleging negligence arising as a result of the use of generative AI. That said, coverage may depend upon on whether the conduct at issue meets the policy’s definition of “professional services.” Don’t assume that it always will. Currently, a well-known risk with generative AI is the hallucination problem. What if an AI tool produces a fake, incorrect, or misleading response and a lawyer relies on the accuracy of the output? Yes, a negligence claim might follow, but would it be a covered claim? The answer could be no.

If this lawyer is unable to demonstrate that she exercised reasonable care and due diligence with her use of the AI tool, then an insurer could argue that no professional service was ever provided because the lawyer simply chose to blindly rely on third-party technology. No professional service means no coverage; and unfortunately, the coverage analysis doesn’t stop there. If the subject lawyer did make a deliberate decision to blindly accept the output as accurate, this act might also trigger a policy’s intentional act exclusion.

A risk management takeaway is lawyers must always accept accountability and responsibility for all AI-generated output by validating the accuracy of outputs. Understand that a lawyer’s duties of competence and diligence can never be delegated to a machine. It’s as simple as that.

2) AI Interfacing with Clients or the General Public

If a law firm markets AI-generated content or tools (e.g., an online chatbot or a DIY legal form generator) directly to clients or the public and a malpractice claim arose out of that service, would this be a covered claim? Here again, depending upon the specifics of the situation and the jurisdiction in which the alleged negligence occurred, the answer could well be no for two reasons. First, if firm lawyers allowed the AI to make critical legal judgements without attorney oversight, this could be viewed as the unauthorized practice of law and LPL policies typically exclude coverage for the unauthorized practice of law. Second, the lack of attorney oversight also implies that no professional services were rendered by an attorney; and as you now know, no professional service means no coverage. In short, over-reliance on an AI tool, or allowing it to make legal decisions without attorney oversight can create unintended consequences.

A risk management takeaway is to exercise caution when deploying AI tools that interact directly with the public and/or clients because a lawyer’s duty to supervise and review all work remains paramount. The fact that an AI Tool is a non-human member of the “staff” makes not one iota of a difference.

3) Confidentiality and Data Security

Feeding sensitive or confidential client information into a generative AI tool, especially one that is cloud-based and accessible to the public or not specifically designed for secure use by legal professionals, could result in a data breach or unauthorized access to this client information potentially giving rise to a claim. Again, would this be a covered claim? Under your malpractice policy, quite possibly no.

The reason is that most LPL policies have exclusions related to intentional acts or breaches of confidentiality that are not the result of a negligent act. That said, if your firm has purchased cyber liability insurance, coverage may be available under that policy depending upon the specific circumstances of any breach. Just be aware that here too an intentional acts exclusion could come into play.

A risk management takeaway is to only use generative AI platforms that come with strict data privacy assurances, allow users to opt out from data retention, and are in compliance with your jurisdiction’s data protection regulations. And yes, this does mean you need to read and understand the terms of service before using any generative AI platform.

I hope this information helps you in any generative AI decision making process going forward because I do believe that generative AI offers incredible opportunities for our profession, opportunities that will enhance how legal services are delivered. While these three coverage concerns aren’t the only concerns with AI, they are ones I believe every lawyer should be most aware of. As for me, I guess I’m kind of relieved the whole metaverse thing seems to have lost its steam. When I start to think about all the coverage issues with that one, it makes my head hurt.

Mark Bassingthwaighte, Esq. Is the resident Risk Manager at ALPS Insurance. To learn more about how ALPS can support your solo or small firm visit: alpsinsurance.com

MORE BLOGS

Utah State Bar Takes Positions on Additional Legislation Affecting the Judiciary, Access to Justice

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY, February 12, 2026 – The Utah State Bar has taken formal positions on several additional bills and resolutions introduced during the 2026 General Session that directly affect the judiciary, judicial procedures and access to justice. These positions were adopted following reviews and recommendations by the Bar’s Governmental Relations Committee (GRC) and subsequent votes on those recommendations by the Utah State Board of Bar Commissioners.

While the proposals vary in scope and subject matter, several raise continued concerns about legislative overreach into core judicial functions, the erosion of constitutionally established processes, and the potential for increased strategic manipulation of court proceedings. Others advance clarity, fairness and access within the justice system and have received Bar support.

“Lawyers have never been neutral observers of our democracy. Twenty-five of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers.  Lawyers helped design a Constitution built on separation of powers and checks and balances to protect the public from one branch of government becoming too powerful,” said Bar Executive Director Elizabeth Wright. “That design was intentional, and it remains essential.”

RELATED: How the Utah State Bar Helps Families: Access, Protection, Education & Accountability

Judicial Appointments and Constitutional Structure

The Bar opposes HB 424, Judicial Nomination Amendments, which would authorize the Governor to appoint judicial vacancies even when candidates have not been nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission. The Commission is an independent body, established by the state constitution, responsible for screening applicants and recommending candidates for judicial vacancies in Utah’s appellate, district and juvenile courts. Using a merit selection process, the Commission ensures candidates are chosen based on qualifications rather than partisan politics. 

The approach of HB 424 directly conflicts with Article VIII, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution and existing administrative rules governing the commission. While the bill is framed as contingent on a future constitutional amendment, its passage would effectively preempt constitutional safeguards currently in place to ensure merit-based judicial selection.

Similarly, the Bar reaffirms its opposition to HB 392 2nd Substitute, District Court Amendments, as well as related measures HJR 21 and SJR 5, which incorporate overlapping language and concepts. These proposals would allow parties to repeatedly disqualify or “strike” judges from specially created panels and replace them with judges drawn from other districts. This structure invites strategic filings designed to obtain more favorable outcomes rather than impartial adjudication and risks subjecting courts to excessive motions practice that undermines judicial efficiency and impartiality.

“Article VIII, Section 8 of the Utah Constitution safeguards the integrity and independence of our judiciary. By requiring appointments from a vetted list of nominees, imposing clear timelines on the executive and legislative branches, and prohibiting partisan political considerations in judicial selection,” said Bar President Kim Cordova. “It ensures that merit and fitness of character govern who serves on our courts. As licensees of the Bar, we have a professional responsibility to uphold this constitutional framework, protect the rule of law and preserve public confidence in a fair and impartial judicial system.”

The Bar has taken no position on HJR 15, which addresses sanctions and dismissals under Rules 11 and 41 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.

Fairness, Uniformity and Access to Justice

The Bar supports HB 094, Criminal Accounts Receivable Amendments, which codifies existing practices to ensure consistent treatment of individuals across jurisdictions. By clarifying and standardizing procedures, the bill promotes fairness and transparency within the criminal justice system.

The Bar also supports SB 182, Attorney Admission to Jail Facilities Amendments, which enhances access to justice by ensuring attorneys can meet with incarcerated clients during regular hours and arrange for meetings outside of regular business hours when necessary. The bill appropriately requires sheriffs to provide safe and private meeting spaces, reinforcing the attorney-client relationship and protecting constitutional rights.

RELATED: Package of Bills Would Remake Utah’s Judicial System

How the Bar Takes Positions on Legislation

“By Utah Supreme Court rule, the Bar has a constitutional responsibility to speak when proposals may adversely affect the judiciary or access to justice for Utahns,” Wright said. “The judiciary is part of a co-equal branch of government. Every lawyer takes an oath to uphold and defend that constitutional structure, and we take that oath seriously. Protecting a fair and impartial justice system and maintaining the balance among the branches of government are core to our duty to the public and the rule of law.”

During the legislative session, the Bar reviews bills that may affect the courts, judicial administration, legal procedures, the practice of law, or access to the legal system. Volunteer attorneys with subject-matter expertise assist in reviewing legislation, but official positions are taken only after consideration by the GRC and a vote of the Bar Commission.

By law and court rule, the Bar may take positions only on matters related to the judiciary and the administration of justice. The Bar does not engage in political advocacy outside these areas. Legislative positions are publicly posted on the Bar’s website. For a complete list of bills the Bar has reviewed and No Positions, click here, and then click 2026 to view the PDF.

RELATED: Utah State Bar Emphasizes Need for Lower Court Resources, Willingness to Collaborate with Decisions Impacting the Judiciary

About the Utah State Bar
Established in 1931 and operating under the authority of the Utah Supreme Court, the Utah State Bar regulates and supports the legal profession in the state. With over 11,000 licensed attorneys, the Bar is committed to promoting a justice system that is accessible, understood, valued, and respected. Governed by a Commission of elected attorneys from Utah’s judicial districts, the Bar provides resources, education, and support to enhance the professional practice of its licensees and upholds the public’s trust in the legal system.

###

MORE BLOGS

Utah State Bar Emphasizes Need for Lower Court Resources, Willingness to Collaborate with Decisions Impacting the Judiciary

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY, February 3, 2026 – The Utah State Bar held a press conference on Tuesday at the Utah State Capitol to address a growing number of legislative proposals that would alter how judges are nominated, retained, and insulated from political pressure. The Bar emphasized its willingness to collaborate, advocated for careful study of adding court structures, and responsible use of taxpayer money, particularly in Utah’s strained lower courts, where the majority of Utahns interact with the justice system.

During the press conference, Bar Executive Director Elizabeth Wright and Bar President Kim Cordova explained that the judiciary is an essential branch of government, and must be grounded in constitutional process, evidence-based decision-making, and respect for long-standing safeguards that protect the public’s right to fair and impartial courts. They both underscored that accountability is strongest when all stakeholders are brought to the table, including judges, attorneys, court administrators, lawmakers, and the public.

They explained processes in a system that the Legislature itself created and has repeatedly reaffirmed, which is recognized as a model for the nation. Every Utah judge is nominated through a nonpartisan commission where the process is merit based, then appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Utah Senate, and subject to voter retention elections. This structure was deliberately designed to balance accountability with independence, ensuring judges can apply the law without fear of political retaliation or pressure tied to unpopular outcomes.

Emphasis was added that judges are accountable through multiple mechanisms, including public retention elections, appellate review, and ethical oversight.

“What accountability does not mean is punishing judges or restructuring the courts because specific rulings are politically unpopular,” said Cordova.

She agreed with the Legislature’s surmise that population growth is a contributing factor to the need for court expansion, but not at the Supreme Court level. She reiterated that the increase in population is felt most acutely in district, justice and juvenile courts. These lower courts handle the overwhelming majority of cases statewide, yet they continue to operate under severe workload pressures. She highlighted that funding decisions should prioritize relieving these pressures to ensure timely access to justice for Utahns.

Cordova shared her experience as a criminal defense attorney, describing days spent waiting hours for cases to be called in overcrowded courtrooms. She noted that when dockets are overloaded, and staffing is insufficient, cases are delayed, families are disrupted, and individuals in custody often remain incarcerated longer than necessary — not because their cases lack merit, but because the system lacks capacity. These delays carry real human and financial costs for taxpayers and communities alike, she said.

RELATED: Utah State Bar Position On Package of Bills Affecting Utah Courts

Both Bar leaders expressed concern that proposed constitutional amendments affecting judicial nominations and retention would concentrate appointment and removal authority within the political branches, weakening essential checks and balances. Allowing one branch of government to bypass merit-based commissions or trigger special retention mechanisms undermines separation of powers and exposes judges to political retaliation rather than evaluation based on performance and integrity.

Wright also stressed that courts are constitutionally obligated to review whether laws comply with the Utah Constitution. That responsibility is not optional, nor is it a political act. When judges face pressure for fulfilling that duty, it is the public that bears the cost. A justice system cannot function as a meaningful check on government power if judges must weigh legal reasoning against political consequences.

Wright also clarified that the Bar is not a political organization or special-interest group and does not advocate for ideology or outcomes. Its involvement in legislative matters is limited by law and court rule to issues that directly affect the regulation of the practice of law and the functioning and independence of the courts.

“When proposals affect how judges are selected, retained, or pressured while on the bench, the Bar has a responsibility to speak on behalf of the justice system and the Utahns it serves,” Wright said.

She expounded further by saying an independent judiciary does not exist to benefit judges. It exists to protect the public by ensuring laws are applied fairly, constitutional rights are upheld, and disputes are resolved based on facts and law. Accountability strengthens institutions when it respects process and constitutional roles; it undermines them when it is used to control or punish.

Cordova added, “Accountability is not about controlling judges. It’s about controlling ourselves and disagreeing better when the Constitution does its job.”

MORE BLOGS

How the Utah State Bar Helps Families: Access, Protection, Education & Accountability

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

Many people hear “State Bar” and think of lawyers, courtrooms, and legal licensing. However, the Utah State Bar serves a much broader purpose. It supports Utah families by helping them access legal services, learn about their rights, protect themselves from dishonest conduct, and address concerns if something goes wrong. Across the state, the Bar works to ensure that the legal system is accessible, trustworthy, and understandable for everyone, regardless of income or background.

When appropriate, the Bar also advocates for a strong and independent judiciary because public protection depends on a court system that is fair, impartial, and free from political or financial influence. When judges can make decisions based solely on the law and the facts, without pressure from outside interests, individuals and families receive equal treatment and predictable justice. The Bar supports policies and public education efforts that reinforce the separation of powers, promote judicial integrity, and ensure that courts remain accessible and accountable. By prioritizing judicial independence, the Bar helps safeguard the rights of all Utahns and reinforces confidence in the courts.

Protecting the integrity of the courts is only one part of the Bar’s work to support the public. It also focuses on making sure people can engage with the legal system in practical ways, especially when they are facing challenging life circumstances.

Improving Access to Justice: Legal Help When It Matters Most

Legal issues can affect housing, family stability, employment, finances, and many other areas of life. Unfortunately, some families hesitate to seek legal help because they assume it is too expensive or complicated. The Bar provides alternatives so people can get legal assistance that fits their needs and their budget.

How the Utah State Bar Helps Families

Programs and initiatives include:

    • The Bar’s Access to Justice Office provides education and resources for families that qualify for reduced fees, which can be accessed at Utah Legal Help. One particular service offered is limited-scope legal representation under the Pro Se Debt Collection Calendar. Pro bono attorneys represent individuals in need of assistance with debt collection matters. Many of these people appear at their initial hearings self-represented, with little to no understanding of how to defend themselves or their rights. This lack of knowledge frequently leads to default judgments and increased debt amounts. The Access to Justice Office manages this program closely with the courts to ensure these individuals have the opportunity to consult with an attorney, gain clarity about their legal rights, and have a better understanding of their situations.

    • Free and low-cost legal clinics, both in person and virtual. A specific online service is called Utah Free Legal Answers. This program is a virtual legal advice clinic in which qualifying users submit civil legal questions at no cost to be answered by pro bono attorneys.

Question topics include:

  • Family, Divorce, Custody,
  • Housing, Eviction, Homelessness,
  • Consumer Rights, Financial, Work, Employment, Unemployment,
  • Health and Disability, Income Maintenance,
  • Civil Rights,
  • Juvenile and Education Law.

  • Services that offer brief legal advice for people who do not need full representation, such as Licensed Paralegal Professionals (LPP). An LPP can help with certain family law matters (such as temporary separation, divorce, parentage, cohabitant abuse, civil stalking, custody and support, or name changes). They can also assist with landlord/tenant situations involving forcible entry and detainer, and debt collection matters in which the dollar amount at issue does not exceed the statutory limit for small claims cases.

    Because LPPs are not lawyers, they cannot represent you by making arguments to the judge in court. They can help you complete legal forms, review documents, participate in mediation negotiations, prepare settlement agreements, and explain court orders for less than you would pay a lawyer.

The Young Lawyers Division of the Bar sponsors service projects, which include free legal help to various populations. In particular, the division presents Wills for Heroes with estate planning, living wills, and healthcare and financial powers of attorney to first responders (police, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) and their spouses or partners.

These one-day events take place five times a year throughout the state of Utah at a first responder department or community center. Participants are trained and provided with laptop computers that have been preloaded with specialized software that allows volunteer attorneys to take questionnaire information previously completed by the individual and input it to create the legal documents.

These resources support individuals dealing with issues such as divorce, custody, landlord and tenant disputes, consumer problems, and other civil matters. The focus is on making justice available to families at every income level.

However, while improving access to justice is essential, access alone is not enough. Families also need assurance that when they place their trust in a legal professional, that trust will be honored. For that reason, the Bar has systems in place to protect clients if misconduct occurs.

Client Protection Fund: A Safety Net for Victims of Dishonest Conduct

The Utah Supreme Court established the Fund for Client Protection on April 9, 1977, to provide meaningful cost reimbursement to people in the rare cases where a lawyer or LPP mishandled funds or engaged in dishonest conduct.

The fund is designed to:

    • Compensate clients when losses occur due to a legal practitioner’s dishonest actions

    • Promote and preserve public confidence in the legal profession

    • Safeguard individuals who may already be facing stress and difficulty during a legal matter

A claim to the Fund for a loss must meet the following criteria:

    • The loss must be caused by the dishonest conduct of the lawyer or the LPP;

    • The loss must have arisen out of the course of a lawyer/client, LPP/client, or fiduciary relationship between the lawyer or the LPP and the claimant and by reason of that relationship; and

    • The claim to the Fund must be filed within one year after the date of the final order of discipline, the date of death, or the date of the order of disability.

This program reflects the Bar’s dedication to protecting the public as well as regulating the legal community. But safeguarding the public is not limited to oversight and complaint resolution. The Bar also strives to strengthen civic knowledge, so Utahns have the tools to participate confidently in their communities and in the legal system.

Civic and Constitutional Education: Learning About Rights and Responsibilities

Supporting civic education for Utah families is something the Bar takes seriously. One example is the Constitution Day webpage, which provides educational tools that introduce constitutional principles in engaging and age-appropriate ways.

Families and educators can access:

    • A downloadable copy of the United States Constitution

    • Interactive educational games suitable for children and families

    • Classroom lesson plans and activities for teachers and homeschool settings

    • Opportunities to invite volunteer lawyers to speak with students about the Constitution and the legal system

The Bar also celebrates Law Day to highlight the rule of law and public understanding of legal rights, government, and justice. These resources help children and adults understand their rights and responsibilities, and how the law affects everyday life.

While civic education lays a strong foundation, families also need support when a legal issue becomes real rather than theoretical. That is why the Bar offers services that guide people from learning about their rights to finding legal professional assistance.

Lawyer Referral Services: Finding the Right Legal Help

When families need an attorney or an LPP, the hardest part is often knowing where to begin. The Bar makes the search easier with LicensedLawyer.org, which connects individuals to licensed professionals based on the type of legal issue, location, and financial situation.

Ethics rules prohibit the Bar from recommending specific attorneys or offering legal advice, but through the referral website, families can:

    • Search for legal professionals by practice area

    • Request help from lawyers who provide limited scope services for those who need assistance with only part of a case

    • Locate practitioners who are open to reduced cost arrangements or alternative payment options

These referral services provide confidence that the lawyer or paralegal practitioner selected is qualified, licensed, and accountable to professional standards. Guiding the public to reputable lawyers is an important step in protecting clients, but equally important is monitoring professional conduct to ensure those lawyers continue to meet ethical and professional expectations.

Office of Professional Conduct: Oversight and Accountability

A healthy legal system depends on strong professional standards. The Bar maintains oversight through two important functions that support the public.

    • The Office of Professional Conduct investigates allegations of serious ethical violations by attorneys or LPPs. The staff thoroughly works to protect the integrity of the profession by prosecuting, where necessary, those individuals who have not satisfied their professional ethical obligations. Additionally, OPC educates licensees of the Bar regarding their professional ethical responsibilities through seminars and discipline notices in the 
      Utah Bar Journal.

    • The Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) provides help with less serious issues such as communication problems, billing disputes, or difficulty obtaining documents or case information. For instance, CAP may be able to help a consumer get their file, locate their attorney or LPP, resolve a communication problem, and provide some general information about the legal system. CAP can also provide information about lawyers and LPP ethical obligations to the consumer and provide referrals to other resources and agencies.

These resources give families a clear path to address concerns and ensure that legal professionals remain accountable to the standards of their profession. In fact, each resource offered by the Bar fulfills a specific role, but together they form a larger network of support for the community.

What This Means for Utah Families

This comprehensive approach underscores the Bar’s dedication to protecting the public and strengthening trust in the justice system. Whether someone is navigating a difficult legal matter, planning for the future, seeking help for a child’s school project, or simply looking for trustworthy legal advice, the Bar offers programs that are designed to serve the public.

Families benefit because:

    • Legal help is available regardless of income

    • Clients are protected if a legal professional acts dishonestly

    • Children and adults have access to high-quality civic and constitutional learning resources

    • People can find licensed legal professionals they can trust

    • There are systems in place to investigate concerns and resolve complaints

The Bar is not only an organization that supports attorneys. It is a resource for Utah families and communities. It promotes access to justice, strengthens public trust, and helps make the legal system understandable and fair for everyone.

 

MORE BLOGS

AI assisted with the structure of this blog.

AI Tools Utah Lawyers Can Use Today: Practical Recommendations from the Utah State Bar

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

By Bennett Borden & Victoria Carrington

Artificial intelligence is no longer theoretical for the legal profession. It is already reshaping how attorneys research, draft, collaborate, and advise clients. In a recent Utah State Bar–hosted discussion, Bennett Borden, founder and CEO of Clarion AI Partners and chair of the Utah State Bar AI Standing Committee, joined Victoria Carrington, a patent attorney and member of the Bar’s Innovation in Law Practice Committee, to walk through practical AI tools lawyers can start using right now.

Their message was clear: AI can dramatically improve efficiency and quality, but only when used thoughtfully, securely, and with appropriate professional oversight.

RELATED: Navigating Generative AI in Law: Five Ethical Principles Every Lawyer Should Remember

General-Purpose AI: Powerful Starting Point

ChatGPT by OpenAI

One of the most widely recognized tools discussed was OpenAI’s ChatGPT. At its core, ChatGPT allows users to input natural-language prompts and receive human-like responses in seconds. For lawyers, this makes it a strong ideation and drafting assistant.

Common use cases include:

  • Brainstorming legal arguments or issues
  • Drafting initial outlines or sample language
  • Explaining complex legal concepts in plain English for clients

For attorneys concerned about confidentiality, the paid business version was emphasized as a better fit for legal practice, as it offers enhanced security controls and prevents user data from being used to train public models.

Importantly, the speakers stressed that ChatGPT works best when prompts are detailed and contextual—and that outputs should always be reviewed and refined by the attorney.

Turning Your Documents Into a Knowledge Base

Google NotebookLM

Another standout tool was Google’s NotebookLM, which allows users to upload documents, links, and materials and then ask targeted questions across that content.

For legal professionals, this opens the door to:

  • Querying deposition transcripts for specific admissions
  • Summarizing case law on targeted legal standards
  • Generating timelines or issue breakdowns
  • Even creating podcast-style audio summaries of dense material

NotebookLM effectively becomes a personalized, searchable knowledge repository—particularly useful in litigation-heavy or document-intensive practices.

AI Where Lawyers Already Work

Microsoft Copilot

For firms already embedded in Microsoft 365, Microsoft Copilot offers seamless AI integration across Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, and Teams.

Practical applications include:

  • Revising document tone and structure directly in Word
  • Summarizing long email threads before meetings
  • Drafting client communications or internal memos
  • Analyzing spreadsheets or preparing presentations

Because Copilot operates inside tools lawyers already use daily, adoption can be faster and less disruptive, especially when paired with the professional licensing version that includes enterprise-grade protections.

Smarter Meetings and Follow-Ups

Zoom AI Companion

Video conferencing is unavoidable in modern legal practice, and Zoom’s AI Companion helps reduce the administrative burden that follows.

Key benefits include:

  • Automatic meeting summaries
  • Action-item tracking
  • Draft follow-up emails
  • Organized notes from whiteboards and discussions

For transactional lawyers managing complex negotiations or multi-party deals, these features can save hours of post-meeting work and reduce the risk of missed details.

Building Advanced Legal Workflows

Notion AI

For attorneys ready to invest in more sophisticated systems, Notion AI offers powerful workflow and knowledge-management capabilities.

Notion AI allows lawyers to:

  • Organize cases, deadlines, documents, and client communications in one system
  • Build repeatable workflows for intake, drafting, and case management
  • Instantly retrieve notes or materials across matters

While Notion has a steeper learning curve, it can deliver significant returns for practices that rely on structured, repeatable processes.

Legal-Specific AI: Purpose-Built for the Law

Beyond general-purpose tools, the speakers highlighted the importance of AI platforms trained specifically on legal content. These include products such as Westlaw’s AI tools and LexisNexis’s Lexis+ AI.

For Utah attorneys, Lexis+ AI is particularly notable because:

  • It is trained on authoritative legal databases
  • It reduces the risk of hallucinated citations
  • It supports legal research and drafting with grounded sources
  • Utah State Bar members have access to dedicated resources and discounts

Even with legally trained models, however, the presenters emphasized that AI is not infallible.

RELATED: Lexis+ AI and the Utah State Bar: Building a Trusted Hub for the Future of the Legal Practice

The Most Important Reminder: Lawyers Remain Responsible

A central theme of the discussion was professional responsibility. AI tools can produce work comparable to that of a junior associate, but just like associate work, everything must be reviewed, verified, and quality-controlled by a licensed attorney.

Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers remain responsible for every filing, communication, and representation made to clients, courts, and opposing counsel, regardless of whether AI assisted in the process.

AI is a powerful assistant, not a substitute for legal judgment.

Curious, Courageous, and Careful

The closing message to Utah lawyers was one of optimism and balance. AI can eliminate much of the repetitive “grunt work” that has traditionally consumed early legal careers, freeing attorneys to focus on strategy, counseling, and advocacy.

The recommendation was simple:

  • Be curious—ask the tools how to use them
  • Be courageous—experiment responsibly
  • Put guardrails in place—and always review the work

More educational content is forthcoming, and attorneys are encouraged to monitor the Utah State Bar’s AI resources page and reach out to the AI Committee or the Innovation and Law Practice Committee with questions.

AI is already changing how law is practiced in Utah. With the right tools and mindset, lawyers can ensure it changes the profession for the better.

This blog was written with AI assistance from the transcript of the video discussion produced by Bennett Borden and Victoria Carrington.

MORE BLOGS

Utah Judiciary to Host Court Connect Town Hall in Salt Lake City

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

Salt Lake City, Utah — The Utah Judiciary invites Salt Lake County residents to attend a Court Connect town hall on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at the Matheson Courthouse in Salt Lake City. 

Court Connect is a statewide initiative aimed at strengthening public trust in the courts, expanding access to justice, and increasing awareness of court resources and services. This free, public event offers community members a chance to engage directly with Judiciary representatives in an informal, welcoming setting. 

These town halls are designed to open doors and build stronger connections between the courts and the communities they serve. They offer the public an opportunity to learn more about the role of the Judiciary, how the courts operate, and how the judicial branch fits into the broader system of government. 

What to Expect: 

Attendees will have the opportunity to: 

● Better understand the role of the courts in Utah’s justice system 

● Ask questions and connect directly with Judiciary representatives 

● Discover how to access justice services, including self-help resources and online filing systems

● Learn about court resources available in their community 

● Meet judges and court personnel in a less formal setting 

These town halls mark the first step in an ongoing effort to create opportunities for the public and community partners to engage directly with the Judiciary. Court Connect events are open to everyone – individual community members, civic organizations, and anyone interested in learning more about Utah’s Judiciary.

Event Details: 

● What: Court Connect Town Hall 

● When: Wednesday, January 14, 2026, 6:00-8:00 p.m. 

● Where: Matheson Courthouse, 450 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

# # #

Tania Mashburn
She/Her/Hers
Director of Communications
801-712-4545
taniam@utcourts.gov

MORE BLOGS

Search UtahBar.org