Author: Jennifer Weaver

How to Select a Backup and Successor Attorney and Why Doing So Matters

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

By Mark Bassingthwaighte, Esq.

Solo attorneys face unique operational and ethical risks when unexpected absences occur. Illness, emergencies, or other disruptions can jeopardize client interests if no continuity plan is in place. Designating a backup or successor attorney is one of the most effective ways to reduce malpractice exposure and ensure uninterrupted client service.

Understanding the Difference Between a Backup Attorney and a Successor Attorney

For most solos, the same individual often agrees to serve as both a backup and successor attorney. While the roles are related, they serve distinct purposes:

  • Backup Attorney – Provides short‑term coverage during temporary absences such as vacations, brief illnesses, or emergencies.
  • Successor Attorney – Steps in to wind down the practice in the event of the solo practitioner’s death, disability, or incapacity.

Neither role involves running a second practice long‑term. Clarifying this distinction can make it easier to find a colleague willing to serve, especially if there’s a decision to make the arrangement reciprocal.

Key Qualities to Look for When Selecting a Backup/Successor Attorney

Choosing the right individual is essential for protecting clients and minimizing risk. Look for someone who:

  • Is competent and experienced in your primary practice areas,
  • Is unlikely to encounter significant conflicts of interest,
  • Has the time, or the ability to find the time, to take on additional responsibilities for short‑periods of time, and
  • Understands the ethical obligations involved in stepping into your practice.

Once selected, make sure to let your staff know who this person is and how he or she can be reached in the event of an emergency.

Essential Preparatory Steps

Beyond designating a backup/successor attorney, there are several other things you should do as part of the process.

  • Prioritize maintaining a current office procedures manual that discusses the calendaring system, conflict system, active file list, open and closed file systems, accounting system, and any other key system. This can be valuable in expeditiously bringing the designated attorney up to speed on how your practice is run.
  • Keep critical systems such as the calendar and conflict systems current at all times.
  • And make certain that all files are thoroughly documented and current as to their status because the designated attorney will need to make decisions based upon what’s in your files. Mistakes can and will be made with poorly documented and/or incomplete files.

Reducing Malpractice Risk Through Proactive Client Communication

Finally, proactively informing clients about your backup/successor attorney arrangement reinforces transparency and demonstrates your commitment to protecting their interests. Including a brief notice in your fee agreement is a simple, effective way to set expectations and reduce confusion during an emergency. Consider using something along the lines of the following:

Succession Planning / Backup Attorney Notice:

While I strive to deliver excellent legal services to every client, I also have an ethical obligation to protect your interests during any extended absences, such as a vacation, an illness, or in the event of my unexpected death or disability. To accomplish this, I have named [insert name] as my backup attorney. This attorney will be available during any extended absences or may step in to assist in the closing of my practice should that ever prove necessary. I will provide advance notice of any planned absences, and my office staff or backup attorney will contact you with information on how to proceed should any unexpected event occur.

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

Nominees announced for Third District Court vacancy

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

SALT LAKE CITY (July 23, 2026) — The Third District Judicial Nominating Commission has selected nominees for a vacancy on the Third District Court. The vacancy results from the retirement of Judge Elizabeth Hruby-Mills, effective Dec. 1, 2026.

The nominees for the vacancy are:

  • Todd Bouton, assistant United States attorney, United States Attorney’s Office;
  • Elizabeth Butler, shareholder and co-chair of the litigation department, Parsons Behle & Latimer;
  • Matthew Janzen, Special Victims Unit division chief and deputy county attorney, Davis County Attorney’s Office;
  • Meagan Rudd, partner and attorney, The Rudd Firm P.C., doing business as Rudd Cooper; and
  • Lance Talakai, team leader, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association.

Written comments may be submitted to the Third District Judicial Nominating Commission at judicialvacancies@utah.gov or to the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, P.O. Box 142330, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2330. The deadline for comments is noon Aug. 3, 2026.

The commission may request additional information or investigate the nominees after reviewing public comments. Following the public comment period, the nominees’ names will be submitted to Gov. Spencer J. Cox, who will have 30 days to make an appointment. The governor’s appointee is subject to confirmation by the Utah Senate.

###

CONTACT:
Robert Carroll
Senior Advisor to Governor Cox
801-243-2290 | rcarroll@utah.gov

Access to Justice Office on KUTV Fresh Living: Helping Utahns find the legal help they need

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

In a recent segment on KUTV’s Fresh Living, host Kari Hawker-Diaz welcomed Utah State Bar Access to Justice Director Megan Connelly to discuss a pressing issue facing many families across the state: navigating the civil justice system. Airing on June 10, 2026, the feature highlighted the vital resources provided by the state’s Access to Justice Office, shedding light on how everyday residents can find critical legal guidance when they need it most.

Navigating civil legal challenges like landlord-tenant disputes, custody battles, or debt collections can be overwhelming for many Utahns, particularly those who cannot afford traditional legal representation. This issue is compounded by stark geographical disparities across the state; while urban centers like Salt Lake County have stable attorney numbers, rural areas such as San Juan County operate as “legal deserts” with fewer than one attorney per 1,000 residents. According to the Utah Bar Foundation, the vast majority of defendants in debt collection and eviction cases are left to represent themselves against represented plaintiffs, underscoring a critical gap in the state’s civil justice system.

To bridge this gap, the Utah Access to Justice Office connects residents with trusted legal tools, self-help resources, and volunteer programs. A key initiative is their Virtual Legal Clinic, which offers eligible individuals free video or phone consultations with volunteer attorneys to clarify their rights and determine next steps before or during a court case. The office is also spearheading long-term solutions—including regulatory reforms and the upcoming Access to Justice Summit—to ensure affordable, widespread legal support for everyone in the state.

To learn more about how to access these services or support these initiatives, read the full article at utahlegalhelp.org.

MORE BLOGS

Utah Judges Offer Rare Behind-the-Bench Perspective on Judicial Service, Independence and the Rule of Law

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY, June 30, 2026 — In a rare and candid Continuing Legal Education (CLE) discussion, current and former members of Utah’s judiciary offered attorneys an inside look at judicial service, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence, public trust, and encouraging qualified lawyers to consider serving on the bench.

The panel featured Judge Don Torgerson of the Seventh District Court, Judge Patricia C. Kuendig of the Third District Court, retired Third District Judge Barry Lawrence, and former Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen. Together, they shared personal experiences from the bench with 391 lawyers in attendance in person and virtually, discussed Utah’s judicial selection process, and addressed common misconceptions about how judges make decisions.

The conversation comes at an important time for Utah’s judiciary. Several judicial districts have experienced significant turnover in recent years, creating opportunities for experienced attorneys to pursue judicial service and helping ensure that Utah’s courts continue to be staffed by highly qualified, ethical and dedicated judges.

“I am grateful to Judges Don Torgerson, Patricia C. Kuendig and Barry Lawrence, and former Justice Diana Hagen for their willingness to candidly share their experiences with fellow attorneys,” said Utah State Bar President Kim Cordova. “Judicial service is one of the most important ways lawyers can serve the public, yet many attorneys never have the opportunity to hear firsthand what life on the bench is really like.”

She continued, “Their openness provided valuable insight into the responsibilities, rewards and challenges of judicial service, while reinforcing an essential truth: Utah’s judiciary is an independent branch of government dedicated to applying the law, protecting individual rights and preserving the constitutional system of checks and balances. Conversations like these strengthen confidence in our courts and inspire the next generation of judges to answer the call to serve.”

Throughout the discussion, panelists emphasized that Utah’s judicial appointment process is rigorous and merit-based. Judge Kuendig, who was appointed to the Third District Court earlier this year, described multiple rounds of interviews with the Judicial Nominating Commission and the Governor’s Office, saying the questions focused on legal experience, judicial philosophy, fairness, integrity and professional judgment, and not political ideology.

Former Justice Hagen echoed those sentiments, explaining that after applying multiple times before her appointment to the Utah Court of Appeals and later the Utah Supreme Court, she found the process both thorough and fair.

The panel also addressed a common misconception that judges decide cases based on political pressure or public opinion.

Retired Judge Lawrence acknowledged that judges are aware when cases receive public attention but emphasized that judicial ethics require judges to decide cases based solely on the law and the facts presented in court.

Judge Torgerson referred to Rule 2.2 of the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct, titled “Impartiality and Fairness.” It is one of the foundational ethical obligations for every Utah judge and states, “A judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.” He reinforced that point, explaining that judges regularly examine their own reasoning to ensure every decision is grounded in the law rather than outside influence.

“Our job is to apply the law fairly for everyone,” Judge Torgerson said. “Regardless of public opinion or a person’s position or influence, every litigant deserves due process and a fair hearing.”

Justice Hagen noted that appellate judges often decide narrow legal questions rather than broad policy debates, explaining that public discussion frequently centers on what people believe the law should be, while judges are constitutionally obligated to determine what the law actually requires.

Panelists also discussed the realities of judicial service, including steep learning curves, demanding workloads, restrictions on political activity, and the increasing number of threats directed toward judges nationwide. While acknowledging these challenges, each speaker described judicial service as one of the most rewarding careers in the legal profession.

Judge Torgerson described the opportunity to thoughtfully resolve disputes, improve access to justice and ensure every person feels heard in court as among the profession’s greatest rewards.

Justice Hagen reflected on the unique opportunity judges have to develop Utah law, mentor future lawyers, educate the public about the judicial system and strengthen civic understanding.

Retired Judge Lawrence encouraged attorneys from all backgrounds to consider judicial service, emphasizing that a judiciary reflecting the diversity of the communities it serves strengthens both the courts and public confidence in the justice system.

The panel concluded by encouraging attorneys not to count themselves out of the application process.

“Our system is built by human beings,” Judge Kuendig said. “We need conscientious, ethical people who care about the rule of law. Don’t self-select out. Give yourself the opportunity to serve.”

The CLE was presented as part of the Utah State Bar’s ongoing commitment to educating lawyers about judicial service, strengthening public confidence in the courts, and encouraging qualified attorneys to help preserve an independent judiciary for future generations.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO

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.

###

BAR BLOGS

 

Prompt Engineering for Lawyers: Getting Better Results from Generative AI

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

By Victoria Carrington
Co-Chair, Innovation in Law Practice Committee

Generative AI tools can be useful in legal practice, but they are only as effective as the instructions lawyers provide. A vague prompt often produces a vague, incomplete, or unreliable response. A clear prompt can produce a more useful starting point.

Prompt engineering is not coding. For lawyers, it simply means giving an AI tool clear, structured, and appropriately limited instructions.

A helpful framework is RULES:

RULES_Mnemonic_for_Lawyers (3)Download

R: Role and Jurisdiction

Tell the AI what role it should assume and what jurisdiction applies.

For example:

You are a Utah employment attorney summarizing the enforceability of employee non-compete agreements under Utah law.

AI tools do not automatically know whether Utah law, federal law, trial practice, appellate practice, or a particular circuit applies. If jurisdiction matters, include it.

U: Understand the Task

Be specific about what you want the tool to do. Words like “analyze” or “help” may be too broad. Stronger prompts use concrete verbs such as:

  • Draft
  • Summarize
  • Compare
  • Rewrite
  • Identify
  • Explain

For example:

Summarize the following contract provision in plain English for a non-lawyer client.

L: Limits

Set boundaries. Without limits, AI tools may generate overly long, unfocused, or unusable responses.

Useful limits may include:

  • Word count
  • Tone
  • Audience
  • Format
  • Number of examples
  • Citation requirements

You can also instruct the tool to flag uncertainty rather than guess. This does not eliminate the risk of hallucinations, but it can help reduce unsupported or overconfident responses.

E: Expected Format

Tell the AI how you want the answer presented.

Examples include:

Provide the answer as a checklist.

Draft a client email in fewer than 150 words.

Create a table comparing the two provisions.

The more clearly you define the desired output, the easier it is to review and revise.

S: Say When It Is Wrong

AI output should be reviewed critically. If the tool misunderstands the task, applies the wrong assumption, or produces an inaccurate statement, correct it.

Lawyers remain responsible for the final work product. Treat AI-generated material like junior work product: potentially useful but requiring careful supervision.

Ethical Considerations

Generative AI does not replace a lawyer’s professional judgment. Lawyers using AI should continue to:

  • Verify citations and legal authorities.
  • Confirm legal conclusions.
  • Protect client confidentiality.
  • Follow applicable firm policies and client requirements.
  • Review all AI-generated work before relying on it.

Do not input confidential client information into an AI tool unless you understand the tool’s privacy protections and your use complies with applicable professional obligations.

Final Takeaway

The lawyers who benefit most from generative AI will not necessarily be those who use it most often. They will be those who instruct it most effectively.

Better prompts lead to better drafts, more focused research assistance, and more efficient review. When using AI, remember the RULES: define the role and jurisdiction, explain the task, set limits, specify the expected format, and correct the tool when it is wrong.

*AI produced this blog from the transcript of the video.

MORE BLOGS

Gov. Cox appoints Leah Rachel Jensen Munoz to the Fifth District Court

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY (June 24, 2026) — Gov. Spencer J. Cox has appointed Leah Rachel Jensen Munoz to the Fifth District Court. Jensen Munoz fills a district court judge position created by the Legislature during the 2026 Legislative Session.

“Leah has spent her career working in some of the most personal and consequential areas of the law,” Gov. Cox said. “Her experience with families, children and vulnerable Utahns has prepared her to bring both legal skill and steady judgment to the bench. I’m grateful for her willingness to serve the Fifth District.”

Jensen Munoz currently serves as section director and assistant attorney general for the Child & Family Support Southern Section at the Utah Attorney General’s Office, where she represents the Utah Office of Recovery Services and oversees matters involving child support establishment, modification and enforcement. She has served as an assistant attorney general since 2015 and has more than 15 years of legal experience in child and family support, family law and public service.

Prior to joining the Attorney General’s Office, Jensen Munoz worked in private practice and legal aid organizations, representing clients in family law matters and advocating for victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable populations. She earned a bachelor’s degree in microbiology from Brigham Young University and a law degree from the University of Akron School of Law.

“I am deeply honored and humbled to have been appointed by Governor Cox for this position in the Fifth District,” Jensen Munoz said. “My commitment is to serve the people of Utah and the Fifth District with dedication and integrity. I will uphold the law and ensure that it is applied impartially and equitably as I strive to maintain the highest standards of fairness and integrity in all my duties.”

The appointment is subject to confirmation by the Utah Senate.

Contact:
Rob Carroll
Office of the Governor
(801) 243-2290, rcarroll@utah.gov 

MORE BLOGS

Gov. Cox appoints Ryan Stack to the Fourth District Court

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY (June 24, 2026) — Gov. Spencer J. Cox has appointed Ryan Stack to the Fourth District Court. Stack fills a district court judge position created by the Legislature during the 2026 Legislative Session.

“Ryan has built a distinguished career serving Utahns both in and out of the courtroom,” Gov. Cox said. “His experience in criminal prosecution, civil litigation and local government will serve the Fourth District well. I am confident he will bring fairness, integrity and sound judgment to the bench.”

Stack currently serves as a deputy county attorney for Summit County, where he represents the county in civil litigation, advises county departments and special districts, and works on issues including artificial intelligence policy, data privacy compliance and public meetings law. Previously, he served for nearly a decade as a prosecuting attorney in Summit County, handling a wide range of felony cases. He began his legal career with the Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office, where he was named Trial Attorney of the Year in 2008.

In addition to his legal practice, Stack served on the Utah Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Heber City Council and the Heber City Planning Commission. He earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, summa cum laude, and a law degree from the University of San Diego.

“I am deeply humbled and honored by the trust Governor Cox has placed in me with this appointment,” Stack said. “If confirmed, I will apply the law with fidelity and impartiality, and will work diligently to ensure that all litigants are fully heard and fairly treated. I am grateful for the opportunity to serve the Fourth District and the people of Utah.”

The appointment is subject to confirmation by the Utah Senate.

Contact:
Rob Carroll
Office of the Governor
(801) 243-2290, rcarroll@utah.gov

MORE BLOGS

Gov. Cox appoints Jeffrey D. Mann to the Third District Court

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

PRESS RELEASE

SALT LAKE CITY (June 24, 2026) — Gov. Spencer J. Cox has appointed Jeffrey D. Mann to the Third District Court. Mann fills a district court judge position created by the Legislature during the 2026 Legislative Session.

“Jeffrey has built an impressive career handling some of the most challenging legal issues in our courts,” Gov. Cox said. “His deep understanding of the law, extensive appellate experience and commitment to public service make him exceptionally well qualified to serve on the Third District Court.”

Mann currently serves as an assistant solicitor general and director of the search and seizure section in the Criminal Appeals Division of the Utah Attorney General’s Office, where he litigates and argues cases before Utah’s appellate courts, supervises appellate attorneys handling Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues, and advises prosecutors across the state. He has authored more than 75 appellate briefs and petitions.

“I am incredibly honored to be appointed by Governor Cox to serve the people of Utah on the Third District Court. I have a deep respect for the rule of law and the principles upon which our nation was founded nearly 250 years ago. If confirmed, I will strive to uphold those ideals and to ensure that everyone who enters our courts experiences equal justice under the law.”

In addition to his work at the Attorney General’s Office, Mann serves on the Standing Committee on Model Utah Criminal Jury Instructions, helping ensure jury instructions reflect current Utah law. He previously practiced at Stirba, P.C., where he represented clients in criminal and civil appeals, criminal defense and complex civil litigation.

Mann earned his juris doctor, with high honors, from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, where he served as an editor of the Utah Law Review and received multiple advocacy and academic honors. He earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology, with a minor in logic, from Brigham Young University.

The appointment is subject to confirmation by the Utah Senate.

Contact:
Rob Carroll
Office of the Governor
(801) 243-2290, rcarroll@utah.gov 

MORE BLOGS

Utah Senate Confirms Jay Jorgensen and Stephen Dent to the Utah Supreme Court

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

UPDATE: On June 17, 2026, the Utah Senate voted to approve the appointments of Jay Jorgensen and Stephen Dent to the Utah Supreme Court, filling two new seats on the expanded seven-member court.

SALT LAKE CITY (June 2, 2026) — Gov. Spencer J. Cox today announced the appointments of Jay T. Jorgensen and Stephen P. Dent to serve on the Utah Supreme Court.

The appointments follow legislation passed earlier this year expanding the Utah Supreme Court from five to seven justices. The two new seats were created as part of the state’s ongoing work to support the judiciary and ensure the Court can continue to provide careful, timely review in cases of statewide importance.

“Jay Jorgensen is one of Utah’s brightest legal minds,” Gov. Cox said. “His career reflects exceptional judgment, integrity and respect for the rule of law. From his rural Utah roots to the highest levels of the legal and business worlds, Jay has shown the character and discipline needed to serve our state with wisdom and humility.”

Jorgensen currently serves as senior counsel in the Office of General Counsel for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He previously served as general counsel, chief compliance officer and corporate secretary for Coupang, Inc. and as executive vice president and global chief ethics and compliance officer for Walmart. Earlier in his career, he was a partner at Sidley Austin LLP and clerked for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court and Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The governor selected Jorgensen following an extensive review process conducted by the Appellate Court Nominating Commission. “I thank Governor Cox and the Appellate Court Nominating Commission for the trust they have placed in me,” Jorgensen said. “I am honored to be appointed to serve on the Utah Supreme Court. I pledge that, if confirmed to this post, I will dedicate myself every day to upholding the high ideals in our state’s constitution and laws.”

The governor selected Dent following the same review process.

“Stephen Dent has the discipline, legal ability and character we need on the bench,” Gov. Cox said. “His record reflects a commitment to public service, careful legal reasoning and respect for the rule of law. I am confident he will bring fairness, integrity and sound judgment to Utah’s highest court.”

Dent currently serves as deputy criminal chief and Southern Utah branch chief in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah. He previously practiced at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and clerked for Judge Robert J. Shelby of the United States District Court for the District of Utah and Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Dent graduated first in his class from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law and served as editor-in-chief of the Utah Law Review.

“I am humbled and honored to be appointed to the Utah Supreme Court,” Dent said. “I thank Governor Cox for entrusting me with this profound responsibility. If confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties as a fair and neutral judge. I love the State of Utah and would consider it the honor of a lifetime to serve on the Court.”

Under the Utah Constitution, judicial appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Utah Senate. The Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee will review each appointee’s record, consider public comments and hold confirmation hearings prior to consideration by the full Senate.

###

CONTACT:
Robert Carroll
Senior Advisor to Governor Cox801-243-2290 | rcarroll@utah.gov
MORE BLOGS

Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant Leaves Lasting Mark on Utah Courts, Legal Profession

Posted on by Jennifer Weaver

SALT LAKE CITY (May 22, 2026) – Few judges leave a mark on a state’s legal system the way Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant has. Over the course of his tenure on the Utah Supreme Court, and particularly in his years as Chief Justice, he brought to the bench something that cannot be taught in law school: genuine wisdom, paired with the kind of quiet integrity that earns lasting respect.

Under his leadership, Utah’s courts pursued practical reforms that expanded access to justice without sacrificing rigor or public trust. He understood that the courthouse must be a place where ordinary people feel the law is working for them, not just a forum for those who can afford to navigate it. That conviction shaped his approach to administration, to technology, and to the culture of the court itself.

The Utah State Bar and the broader legal profession are better for his involvement. He mentored attorneys and judges with patience and seriousness of purpose, holding the profession to high standards not by lecture but by example. Practitioners who appeared before him, whether they prevailed or not, left with a sense that they had been heard fairly. That is no small feat, and it reflects a deep and abiding respect for what the law is supposed to do.

Those who worked alongside Chief Justice Durrant will tell you that his title never seemed to matter much to him; what mattered was the work. He carried himself with the same steadiness on his most visible days as on his most ordinary ones. There was no gap between the person and the position. That kind of consistency, over a career as long and demanding as his, is rarer than it ought to be.

As Chief Justice Durrant steps away from the Court, the legal community he served so faithfully wishes him and his family every comfort. What he built here, in the culture of the courts, in the careers he shaped, in the decisions that now anchor our jurisprudence, will not fade. Utah was fortunate to have him.

RELATED: Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant to Retire from Utah Supreme Court

MORE BLOGS

Search UtahBar.org