As part of this year’s Well-Being Week in Law, legal professionals gathered for a thoughtful and timely conversation led by Manar Morales, a nationally recognized leader on workplace culture, flexibility, diversity, and well-being in the legal profession. Morales, who serves as President and CEO of the Diversity and Flexibility Alliance, has spent years helping organizations rethink how professionals can thrive both personally and professionally.
The webinar focused on one of the most pressing challenges facing today’s legal professionals: how to sustain personal well-being in a culture that often rewards constant motion, high performance, and self-sacrifice.
Throughout the webinar, Morales emphasized that many professionals are operating on “autopilot,” moving from task to task without taking the time to reflect on how they are truly feeling. She explored how the fast pace of modern life can create a disconnect between our external productivity and our internal well-being.
“When individuals stop examining their emotional responses, motivations, and needs, burnout can quietly take hold,” she said.
A central theme of the virtual continuing legal education session was the importance of intentional pause.
Participants learned how stepping back from daily routines — even briefly — can create space for self-awareness and clarity. Rather than reacting automatically to stressors, legal professionals were encouraged to become more mindful of their habits, emotional triggers, and personal values. This practice of reflection is essential not only for mental health but also for making decisions that align with one’s authentic priorities and long-term goals, Morales said.
The CLE also acknowledged a difficult reality within the legal profession: many current workplace expectations and routines are simply not sustainable. Attorneys and professionals often feel pressure to excel in every direction at once—professionally, personally, and within their communities—without adequate space for rest and recovery. The webinar challenged attendees to rethink the assumption that constant productivity equals success.
Burnout and recovery became another important focus of the session. Morales emphasized that healing from chronic stress is not immediate and that individuals should approach themselves with patience and compassion. Self-care was framed not as indulgence, but as a necessary and ongoing practice.
Practical reminders about tending to physical well-being during periods of stress, including staying hydrated, getting adequate rest, and paying attention to the body’s signals, were advised. While simple, these foundational practices were presented as meaningful steps toward recovery and resilience. The conversation reinforced that burnout cannot be solved overnight; it requires intentional care, support, and time.
Equally important was the discussion around identity and alignment. Many professionals, particularly within the legal industry, juggle multiple roles simultaneously, such as attorney, parent, caregiver, partner, mentor, business leader, or community advocate. The webinar explored how difficult it can be to reconcile these identities when professional demands overshadow personal values or family life.
Rather than viewing well-being as separate from professional success, Morales advocated for a more holistic approach that recognizes people as whole individuals with interconnected personal and professional needs. Attendees were encouraged to create environments, both at work and at home, that support emotional health, meaningful relationships, and personal fulfillment alongside career achievement.
The conversation ultimately served as a reminder that well-being is not a luxury or secondary concern. It is foundational to sustainable leadership, effective advocacy, and healthy communities within the legal profession. Something that the Utah Supreme Court took seriously when it amended Utah Rule 1.01, which took effect nearly three years ago. Utah Courts specifically noted that the purpose of the amendment was educational and intended to reinforce the connection between lawyer well-being and professional competence. The amendment language reads:
“Lawyers should be aware that their mental, emotional, and physical well-being may impact their ability to represent clients and, as such, is an important aspect of maintaining competence to practice law and compliance with the standards of professionalism and civility.”
Utah R. Pro. Conduct 1.1 cmt. [9] (effective May 17, 2023).
As Well-Being Week in Law continues to grow as a national initiative, conversations like the CLE help shift the profession toward a healthier and more human-centered future. Morales’ leadership and the candid reflections shared during the webinar underscored a powerful message: success should not come at the expense of personal well-being.
For legal professionals navigating demanding careers and increasingly complex lives, the takeaway was clear—pause, reflect, reconnect, and permit yourself to prioritize your well-being with the same commitment you bring to serving others.
*AI was used to summarize the CLE transcript, but the entire blog was written by the Utah State Bar Communications Director, Jennifer Weaver.
SALT LAKE CITY, April 28, 2026 — In response to recent public calls urging voters to remove judges based on individual rulings, the Utah State Bar emphasizes the importance of understanding how judges are selected, evaluated, and retained in Utah’s merit-based system.
“Utah is nationally recognized for the strength and integrity of its judiciary,” said Bar President Kim Cordova. “Judges are not elected through partisan campaigns. They are chosen through a rigorous process that includes application, screening, and vetting for qualifications, experience, and temperament. The governor makes nominations from a vetted list, and those nominated judges are then confirmed by the Senate.”
Importantly, judges are regularly reviewed by the Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC), an independent body that evaluates performance using objective criteria, including legal ability, fairness, integrity, communication skills and judicial temperament. The 13-member commission includes appointees from all three branches of government: four appointed by the governor, four by the Utah Supreme Court, two each by the Senate President and House Speaker, and the executive director of the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. No more than seven members may be attorneys, and political balance is required among appointees. These evaluations are publicly available and provide voters with a reliable resource when making retention decisions.
“Judges are bound by ethical obligations to apply the law as written, even when doing so may be unpopular,” said Bar Executive Director Elizabeth Wright. “Disagreement with a specific ruling should not be the basis for removal. A fair court system depends on judges who apply the law consistently for all, without being swayed by public or political pressure.”
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.
###
CONTACT Jennifer Weaver Communications Director Utah State Bar Office: 801-746-5237 Cell: 385-329-3558 jweaver@utahbar.org
The Utah State Bar has issued a warning about a highly sophisticated phishing scam specifically aimed at family law practitioners. Unfortunately, one of our colleagues recently fell victim to this scheme, and their experience highlights just how convincing and dangerous these attacks can be.
How the Scam Worked
About two weeks ago, a family law custody evaluator received an email that looked like it came from a known attorney. The email claimed to be sharing a document via Dropbox. When the recipient clicked the link and entered their Microsoft credentials, their email account was compromised.
The attackers didn’t stop there. Once inside the account, they:
Searched historical email exchanges with other attorneys and mental health professionals.
Sent fraudulent replies within ongoing threads, using the lawyer’s real signature block and HIPAA disclosure.
Created hidden server-side rules to redirect replies to the RSS feeds folder, preventing the evaluator from noticing the activity.
Continued sending malicious file-sharing links, sometimes dropping Dropbox references and instead urging recipients to “copy and paste” a suspicious link into their browser.
This is still an active scam, with multiple family law practitioners continuing to receive fraudulent messages as of this week.
What You Should Do
If you receive an email with Dropbox, OneDrive, or other file-sharing links that seems suspicious:
Contact the sender independently using a phone number or email you already trust.
Double-check the sender’s address for typos or slight variations (e.g., .com vs. .co).
Never click or paste unknown links into your browser.
Report the email immediately to your IT team or service provider.
Delete using your provider’s security tools, not just the trash folder.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated attack. Lawyers have long been attractive targets for cybercriminals because they handle sensitive information, client funds, and confidential communications. Here are a few other common scams to watch for:
Fake Client Overpayment Scams
An individual posing as a client asks an attorney to handle a quick legal matter. They “accidentally” send a check or wire for too much money, then request a refund. By the time the attorney realizes the original payment was fraudulent, the refund has already been sent.
Wire Fraud in Real Estate Transactions
Cybercriminals monitor communications between lawyers, clients, and title companies. At the right moment, they send an email—appearing to come from a lawyer or client—with “updated” wire instructions. The result: hundreds of thousands of dollars sent to a scammer’s account.
Compromised Vendor or Court Notices
Scammers impersonate courts, opposing counsel, or professional vendors, sending official-looking emails with malicious attachments labeled as “motions,” “subpoenas,” or “invoices.” The attachments often contain ransomware or credential-harvesting malware.
Business Email Compromise (BEC)
Attackers gain access to a lawyer’s email account (often through phishing, like in the Utah case). They silently monitor communications, waiting for the right time to insert fraudulent requests for payments, settlement disbursements, or confidential files.
Fake Bar or Disciplinary Notices
Lawyers have reported receiving emails claiming to be from their state bar, alleging disciplinary action or requesting payment of dues. These scams prey on lawyers’ fear of professional sanctions and often include urgent deadlines to prompt rash clicks.
Protecting Yourself and Your Clients
Enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Even if credentials are stolen, MFA can stop attackers from logging in.
Train Staff Regularly: Many breaches occur when non-lawyer staff unknowingly click a link or open an attachment.
Use Secure File-Sharing Services: Avoid sending sensitive documents via email links unless absolutely necessary.
Monitor Your Email Rules: Periodically review server-side rules to ensure none have been secretly added.
Stay Informed: Bar associations and cybersecurity groups often issue alerts—make it a habit to check them.
Cybercriminals are increasingly targeting lawyers with personalized, highly convincing scams. By staying alert and skeptical of unexpected messages, you can help protect yourself, your clients, and the integrity of the profession.
*This blog was partially created with the assistance of AI.
Join the legal community for a week dedicated to health, balance, and professional fulfillment, recognizing that wellbeing is essential to your legal practice and professional competence, as reflected in the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), Comment 9.
The Utah State Bar announces the results of its 2026 elections, introducing new leadership for the upcoming term beginning July 1, 2026.
We are pleased to recognize Thomas J. Bayles of ProvenLaw, PLLC as President-Elect. Bayles will serve in that role during the 2026 to 2027 fiscal year and will assume the presidency for the 2027 to 2028 term. His professional background and commitment to the legal community position him to help lead the Bar through a period of continued growth and service.
The Bar also welcomes newly elected members to the Board of Bar Commissioners, representing divisions across the state:
First Division R. Christian Hansen
Second Division Yvette Donosso
Fourth Division Jeremy C. Reutzel
Third Division Ashley Biehl
Third Division Ezzy Khaosanga
Third Division Walter Romney, Jr.
Each of these individuals was selected following a candidate process outlined on the Bar’s election information page, which highlights their professional experience, community involvement, and perspectives on serving Utah’s legal profession.
Together, this incoming leadership group brings a broad range of legal expertise and regional representation. Their service will help guide the Bar’s ongoing efforts to support its members, strengthen public trust in the justice system, and uphold high standards of professionalism across Utah.
As the public comment period closes today, April 6, 2026, the Utah State Bar has formally issued a comment in opposition to the Department of Justice’s proposed rule, Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys.This rule seeks to grant the DOJ the “right of first review” over ethics complaints against its attorneys, requiring state bars to pause their own independent investigations indefinitely.
The Bar joins a mounting chorus of over 1.05 million commenters, including the Conference of Chief Justices, formerly led by Utah’s own Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, who argue that this proposal undermines the sovereign authority of state courts to regulate the legal profession. Legal experts emphasize that the rule threatens the principle of equal accountability and appears to conflict with the McDade Amendment, which mandates that federal prosecutors be subject to state ethics rules “to the same extent and in the same manner” as all other attorneys.
If you wish to voice your perspective on this shift in disciplinary oversight, you may submit your comments through the federal rulemaking portal (Docket No. OAG 199) before the end of the day.
As Utah’s most recent legislative session concluded, the legal community is left with a mix of progress, concern, and ongoing responsibility. While a comprehensive analysis will unfold through upcoming CLEs and deeper reviews, this overview highlights several major developments, emerging trends, and what they mean for attorneys, clients, and the judiciary.
A Strong Showing from the Legal Community
Before diving into policy, it’s worth emphasizing the extraordinary engagement from Utah lawyers this session. Attorneys across the state showed up — testifying, writing letters, making calls, and collaborating with advocacy groups. These efforts were not symbolic; they materially influenced legislation.
Many of the bills that ultimately passed were significantly altered from their original drafts. That change reflects the impact of informed advocacy and underscores a critical point: participation works.
Major Legislative Highlights
Expansion of the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts (SB 134)
One of the most visible outcomes was the expansion of Utah’s appellate judiciary. The legislature approved:
Additional Supreme Court justices
Two new appellate court judges
New district judges in key regions
While these additions address real capacity needs, they come with substantial costs—over $4.5 million one-time and nearly $2.8 million ongoing annually.
However, a central concern remains: funding did not extend to essential support infrastructure such as judicial assistants, law clerks, and courtroom capacity. Since most Utahns interact with the justice system at the district and juvenile court levels, this imbalance may create operational strain.
District Court Constitutional Panel (HB 392)
Originally introduced as a “constitutional court,” this bill evolved into a three-judge district court panel responsible for hearing challenges to state statutes.
Key changes during the legislative process included:
Adjustments to panel structure and eligibility
Clarification of who may bring challenges
Limiting participation to specific government entities
Despite these revisions, the bill introduces new procedural complexity and carries ongoing costs. A related contingency bill (HB 366) ensures a fallback structure if HB 392 is invalidated, further increasing financial commitments.
Judicial Transparency Reform (HB 540)
Framed as a transparency measure, this bill initially proposed live-streaming all court proceedings statewide. That raised significant concerns around:
Privacy in family and criminal matters
Protection of sensitive information
Practical courtroom implications
Following extensive feedback, the final version scaled back dramatically. Instead, it focuses on:
Expanding public access to audio recordings
Implementing post-employment disclosure requirements for judges
While still impactful, the revised bill reflects a more balanced approach between transparency and privacy.
Beyond individual bills, several broader patterns defined this legislative cycle:
Accelerated Legislative Timelines
Many bills were introduced late and moved rapidly through committees and votes, limiting meaningful stakeholder input. This compressed timeline reduces opportunities for thoughtful analysis and increases the risk of unintended consequences.
Narrative Pressure on the Judiciary
A recurring theme was the portrayal of the judiciary as lacking accountability or transparency. This framing influenced multiple proposals, including those targeting judicial selection and retention.
However, many of the proposed “solutions” risk undermining the very principles they aim to strengthen, particularly judicial independence and rigorous vetting processes.
Bills That Didn’t Pass, but Matter
Several late-session proposals failed but remain important signals:
Changes to judicial retention elections
Alterations to judicial nominating commissions
These proposals raised constitutional concerns and highlighted tension between political influence and judicial independence. Utah’s current system — featuring thorough vetting and performance-based evaluation—remains a national model, but continued scrutiny is likely.
The Bigger Question: What Kind of Judiciary Do We Want?
At the core of this session is a fundamental question for the legal community:
How should judges be selected?
What defines accountability?
How do we preserve independence while maintaining public trust?
These are not abstract issues — they directly shape client outcomes, legal practice, and the rule of law.
The Work Continues: Why the Interim Matters
Although the legislative session has ended, the process has not. The interim period offers a critical opportunity:
Engage with legislators without time pressure
Contribute to developing policy early
Shape proposals before they solidify
For attorneys, this is often the most effective window to influence outcomes.
Final Thoughts
This session demonstrated both the power of legal advocacy and the fragility of institutional balance. While meaningful progress was made, significant challenges remain — particularly around funding priorities, legislative process, and public perception of the judiciary.
The call to action is clear: stay engaged, stay informed, and continue participating.
Because as this session proved, when lawyers show up, the system responds.
Source: Video transcript remarks by Kim Cordova, Utah State Bar President
The video below is from the virtual CLE called, “The Insiders’ View & Summary of the 2026 Legislative Session – What Passed & The Effect on Your Practice.” The session was April 1, 2026, and featured the Bar’s lobbyists, Frank Pignanelli, Steve Styler and Jacey Skinner. Distinguished speakers are Sen. Brady Brammer, Sen. Todd Weiler, Sen. Kirk Cullimore, Sen. Dan McCay, Rep. Grant Miller, Rep. Anthony Loubet, Rep. David Shallenberger, and Rep. Keven Stratton.
** Disclaimer – viewing this video on demand does not count as CLE credit unless previously authorized by the Utah State Bar. **
At Part 2 of the Utah State Bar’s “Let’s Talk, Let’s Listen” CLE series, attorneys and judges gathered in person and online for a timely conversation about the judiciary, legislative power, and the balance between the branches of government.
Moderated by Keith A. Call of Spencer Fane, the event on March 17, 2026, drew strong interest, with roughly 850 attendees registered on Zoom and about 50 people attending live at the Utah Law & Justice Center. The discussion featured Utah Supreme Court Justice Paige Peterson and Utah Court Administrator Ron Gordon, who offered insight into how recent legislative activity is affecting Utah courts and why judicial independence remains essential.
Call opened by noting the extraordinary level of attention surrounding the relationship between Utah’s judicial and legislative branches. He pointed to a recent legislative session that included an unusually large number of bills affecting the courts, the judiciary, and the legal profession.
The purpose of the event, he said, was to move beyond slogans and headlines and instead create a meaningful discussion about checks and balances, separation of powers, and the appropriate role of each branch of government.
What does the Utah Court Administrator do?
Gordon began by explaining his role as Utah’s court administrator. By statute, he oversees the administrative operations of the judiciary, but he does not direct judges or influence judicial decision-making.
That distinction, he emphasized, is critical.
Judges decide cases. His role is to support the system that enables courts to function, including staffing, operations, and coordination with the Utah Judicial Council, one of the two constitutional governing bodies of the judiciary, along with the Utah Supreme Court.
Justice Peterson on the redistricting ruling and public criticism
One of the central topics was the Utah Supreme Court’s opinion in League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature, the redistricting case that has drawn sharp criticism from some lawmakers.
Justice Peterson acknowledged the criticism directly. She said public criticism comes with public office, and judges understand that their decisions will be scrutinized. But she also expressed frustration that much of the public debate has not focused on what the court actually held.
“I wish the criticism in this specific instance were more directed at the legal issues we actually answered,” Peterson said. “A lot of it isn’t really focused on what we actually said in the opinion.”
She then walked through the legal question at the center of the case.
The dispute arose after voters approved Proposition 4, a citizen initiative aimed at prohibiting partisan gerrymandering in redistricting. After its passage, the legislature repealed the initiative, replaced it with a different law, and later enacted a congressional map that plaintiffs argued amounted to partisan gerrymandering.
According to Peterson, the plaintiffs argued that the legislature’s actions violated two provisions of the Utah Constitution: the initiative power and Article I, Section 2, which states that all political power is inherent in the people and that they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.
Peterson said the legal question before the Court was narrow and specific. “That was the question before us,” she said. “Is this an enforceable right? Does this right get constitutional protection? Or is it the case that the legislature can repeal any citizen initiative without limitation, even if it reforms the government, because they have legislative power which allows them to do that?”
The Court’s answer, she said, was equally specific.
“What we said is this is in our declaration of rights. It says what it says. It is an enforceable right,” Peterson said. “If one thinks, if the people of Utah think that the legislature has violated it, they can come to court and get a hearing on that. And this is a cognizable claim that you can bring to court. That is what we held.”
She also pushed back on the claim that the opinion created something new or extraordinary.
“I don’t think that creates a superlaw,” Peterson said. “This is not anything new.”
And she emphasized that the Court was not making policy. “We don’t create the law,” she said. “We look at the law as it exists. We interpret it and we apply it in controversies that are brought before us. And that’s what we did in this case.”
Her broader point was that the public argument over Proposition 4 should center on the Court’s actual reasoning, not political shorthand. “I would love for the debate to focus on that,” she said.
The legislative session’s practical impact on the courts
Gordon highlighted several major developments from the legislative session, beginning with Senate Bill 134, which added seven new judgeships. That included two additional Utah Supreme Court justices, two new Court of Appeals judges, and three new district court judges.
He described the expansion as historic.
The judiciary had requested additional district court, juvenile court, and Court of Appeals judges, and Gordon said those additions were badly needed. He also noted the practical consequences: more judicial chambers, more staff, and even physical construction to make room for the expanded bench.
He also pointed to legislation creating new procedures for certain constitutional claims against state actors, including the possibility of three-judge district court panels. That change, he explained, has major administrative consequences because cases that previously required one judge may now require three judges and additional support staff.
Other measures, including broader judiciary amendments, are also changing how case assignments work and how judicial resources are allocated.
When asked about appropriate checks on judicial power, Justice Peterson turned to a foundational principle: the judiciary is often described as the “least dangerous branch” because it does not control the purse or the sword.
The executive branch enforces the law. The legislative branch controls public funding and policymaking. The judiciary’s role is different. Its responsibility is to interpret the law, apply it in actual controversies, and exercise judicial review when a party argues that another branch has exceeded constitutional limits.
That is not activism, she said. It is the judiciary’s core constitutional duty.
Peterson also emphasized that the judiciary already operates under significant checks. The legislature controls judicial funding. The political branches influence judicial selection. The legislature has changed who selects the chief justice. And the judiciary depends on the executive branch to enforce some court orders.
What the judiciary must preserve, she argued, is the ability to decide cases based only on law, without fear or favor. That independence is not for judges’ benefit. It exists so that every person who comes to court can trust they will get a fair hearing, even when the opposing party is the government itself.
The state of judicial independence in Utah
Peterson described the current moment as “a bit of a rocky time,” citing unusually direct criticism of judges, calls for impeachment, and legislative condemnations of the Court and individual jurists.
Even so, she pushed back on the idea that the Utah Supreme Court is unchecked.
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, she noted, the Utah Constitution can be amended with relative regularity. If the people of Utah disagree with the Court’s constitutional interpretation, the legislature can propose an amendment and voters can ratify it. In that sense, the Court is not truly the last word.
As for how judges stay independent amid public criticism, Peterson said the answer is straightforward, even if the reality is difficult: judges must continue doing the job as the law requires. She said she does not know any other way to serve.
At the same time, she acknowledged a recurring frustration. Judges generally cannot join public debates to defend or explain themselves beyond their written opinions. When public debate misstates those opinions, judges often have little ability to respond.
How the judiciary works with the legislature
Gordon offered a practical view of how the courts and legislature interact. The Utah Supreme Court and Judicial Council determine the judiciary’s positions on legislation, and court staff communicate those positions during the legislative process.
Much of that interaction, he said, actually works well.
In many cases, legislators listen to judicial concerns, make changes, and address unintended consequences. Gordon was careful not to frame disagreement itself as a problem. If the legislature disagrees with a court’s interpretation of a statute, it can amend that statute. That is part of the normal constitutional process.
The real concern, he said, arises when proposals appear designed not merely to change policy but to influence how judges think about cases. If a judge is pressured to ask anything other than “What does the law require in this case?” then judicial independence is at risk.
Gordon said that standard matters deeply to him, especially after years of watching judicial appointments under Governor Gary Herbert. He recalled that judicial candidates were consistently asked to explain the role of a judge and commit to making not only the easy decisions, but the hard ones as well.
That, he said, is exactly what Utahns should want from their courts.
Why aren’t there more Supreme Court dissents?
Peterson also addressed criticism that the Utah Supreme Court does not issue enough opinions or enough dissents.
On the opinion volume question, she explained that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the entire court pipeline. Trial slowdowns in district court eventually affected the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court. At the same time, the Court went through a major transition as two justices retired. That combination temporarily reduced output.
She said the Court has since returned to a more typical pace, with around 60 opinions per year.
As for dissents, Peterson said fewer dissents often reflect a rigorous internal process, not a lack of serious disagreement. Draft opinions are circulated among the justices, who critique them intensely. That process often leads to refinements, narrower reasoning, and greater consensus.
In her view, a unanimous opinion shaped by careful debate is often stronger than one fragmented into multiple separate writings.
Why the chief justice selection change matters
Peterson was especially candid about one recent change: the selection of Utah’s chief justice.
Previously, the Supreme Court selected its own chief. Now the governor and legislature play that role. Peterson said that matters because the chief justice is not only the head of the Supreme Court, but also the administrative leader of the judiciary and a key public voice in defending judicial independence.
Putting that position under the control of the political branches, she said, raises real concerns. She compared it to the judiciary selecting the Speaker of the House or the Senate President, an arrangement legislators themselves would almost certainly reject.
Concerns about judicial selection
Peterson also expressed concern about changes to Utah’s judicial selection process.
She described her own experience applying for the bench as a powerful example of Utah’s merit-based system at work. Initially skeptical, she said she came away convinced the process was genuinely rigorous and focused on qualifications, temperament, and integrity rather than political connection.
That, she argued, is something Utahns should value and protect.
She warned that recent changes have weakened key guardrails, including the removal of a rule designed to ensure nominating commissions were not dominated by one political party. She also pointed to proposals that would have gone even further, such as weakening the nominating commission system or moving toward judicial elections.
In her view, those changes would erode public confidence and risk turning judges into politicians.
Her message was clear: merit selection protects the public, not the judiciary alone.
Reasons for optimism
Despite the tension surrounding the topic, both speakers pointed to reasons for hope.
Gordon said there are many healthy interactions between branches of government that never make headlines. Peterson echoed that, noting that legislators and the judiciary often engage constructively, especially when discussing bills that directly affect court operations.
She also highlighted efforts by the courts to improve public engagement, including the judiciary’s Court Connect project, which invites members of the public to courthouses to meet judges and learn how the court system works. That effort, she said, was partly a response to concerns that courts can seem distant or mysterious.
She described it as a positive example of the judiciary listening and responding in good faith.
A call to action for lawyers
In closing, both speakers urged lawyers to remain engaged.
Gordon encouraged attorneys to speak up when they see threats to judicial independence, noting that courts cannot always defend themselves publicly.
Peterson closed on a broader historical note, tying the discussion to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. She reminded the audience that many of the colonists’ grievances against King George III involved the denial of an independent judiciary and fair legal process.
For her, that history underscores the enduring importance of judicial independence, not as an abstract ideal, but as a practical safeguard for everyone who depends on the rule of law.
And she left the audience with gratitude: lawyers, she said, have understood what is at stake and have been willing to stand up for those principles.
Final takeaway
The conversation made one point unmistakably clear: this is not just an institutional debate about courts and legislatures. It is a debate about whether Utahns can trust that legal disputes will be decided fairly, impartially, and according to law.
That trust depends on a judiciary strong enough to make difficult decisions and independent enough to make them without fear.
SALT LAKE CITY (March 13, 2026) – A new statewide survey of Utah attorneys shows that threats and harassment against legal professionals remain a persistent concern, with hundreds of lawyers reporting incidents ranging from intimidation and harassment to physical assault.
“The survey shows that threats occur across the profession and are experienced by both men and women at relatively similar rates. What differs is the nature of the threats. Women reported a higher number of threats that were sexual in nature,” Kelson said.
He added that protecting the safety and well-being of judges and attorneys is essential to maintaining confidence in the justice system.
“Lawyers and judges cannot do their jobs effectively if they are worried about personal safety,” he said. “Ensuring that the people who carry out the work of the courts can do so without fear is critical to the integrity of the justice system and the public’s ability to resolve disputes through the rule of law.”
The 2026 survey received 1,593 responses from attorneys, representing 12.4% of the Bar’s 12,847 in-state members. Among those respondents, 703 reported experiencing threats or violence connected to their legal work, including 58 physical assaults.
By comparison, the 2006 survey drew 904 responses from 6,832 attorneys. In that survey, 417 respondents reported threats or violence and 63 reported physical assaults. Exemplifying the reality of threats and violence experienced by Utah attorneys, when the 300+ attendees of the convention were asked to raise their hand if they had received threats related to their legal practice, nearly half of all attendees raised their hand. When asked how many had been the victim of an assault, more than 30 hands were raised.
Bar leaders said the data shows that while Utah has not experienced a recent fatal attack involving members of the legal profession, threats and intimidation still occur with concerning frequency.
“The safety and well-being of those who serve in the justice system matters deeply,” said Bar President Kim Cordova. “Judges on the bench and lawyers representing litigants often work in emotionally charged situations. Protecting their well-being is essential to maintaining a justice system that functions fairly for everyone.”
The survey found that the highest rates of threats or violence were reported by attorneys practicing in family law, criminal prosecution, criminal defense and general practice. These areas of law frequently involve high-conflict disputes or criminal allegations that can heighten emotions among those involved in a case.
Court security data reflects similar concerns. According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, Utah courts recorded 117 threats between 2023 and 2025. Most were written or electronic communications, with additional verbal or in-person incidents and several cases involving false emergency reports or the release of private information.
Legal professionals also point to the growing role of online hostility in escalating tensions surrounding court proceedings. Cordova said public discourse around legal matters is increasingly shaped by short clips, posts and headlines circulating online and on social media.
“People today are often exposed to pieces of information that may be taken out of context or presented in a way designed to provoke a strong emotional reaction,” Cordova said. “Before reacting or sharing something online, we encourage people to take a moment to ask whether they are seeing the full picture or whether they may be responding to clickbait, half-truths or misinformation.”
She added that judges and lawyers frequently cannot respond publicly to accusations or speculation because ethical rules limit what they can say about pending cases.
“That silence can sometimes be misunderstood,” Cordova said. “But the justice system depends on due process, fairness and respect for the rule of law.”
Bar leaders said the survey highlights the importance of continuing efforts to support the well-being and safety of attorneys and judges while maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
“The legal profession exists to serve the public,” said Bar Executive Director Elizabeth Wright. “Ensuring that those who administer justice can do their work safely and responsibly ultimately protects the integrity of the system and the people it serves.”
The Bar is using the survey findings to offer support to the safety and well-being of legal professionals. In the coming months, the Bar plans to provide a safety training program for attorneys and judges focused on recognizing and responding to threats, both in person and online. Bar leaders said the organization will continue to examine the evolving landscape facing members of the legal profession and the realities that attorneys and judges encounter in their day-to-day work and courtroom environments.
The second day of the Utah State Bar’s 2026 Spring Convention continued the event’s theme, “Securing Our Relationships and Our Skills: Practicing Law in Ever-Changing Times,” bringing attorneys together in St. George for conversations focused on professional well-being, public trust in the justice system, and the evolving practice of law.
With a full agenda of keynote presentations, research findings, and discussions with members of the judiciary, Day Two emphasized the importance of community within the legal profession and the responsibility lawyers share in maintaining a strong and trusted justice system.
The morning began with welcoming remarks from Utah State Bar President-Elect Tom Bayles, who encouraged Bar licensees to continue building on the organization’s strengths while remaining focused on the practical needs of attorneys across the state. (Read Tom’s Remarks)
Bayles emphasized that the Bar’s role is not to reinvent itself but to “build on what works” by strengthening relationships among attorneys and ensuring lawyers have access to meaningful training and resources. He highlighted the importance of accessible continuing legal education, especially for lawyers practicing outside the Wasatch Front, where geographic distance can create additional challenges.
He also underscored the importance of maintaining thoughtful communication with policymakers when legislation affects the courts and the practice of law, noting that informed perspectives from legal professionals help ensure public policy reflects real-world experience.
Throughout his remarks, Bayles encouraged attorneys to remain engaged with the Bar by joining sections, volunteering, and sharing their perspectives.
“Our profession continues to evolve,” Bayles said. “But it is still built on the same core principles it always has been: judgment, skill, service, and trust.”
Well-Being and the Power of Professional Relationships
The day’s opening keynote was delivered by BYU professor Julianne Holt-Lunstad, whose research focuses on social connection and well-being. Her presentation explored how loneliness and isolation affect professionals and how strong professional relationships contribute to competence, resilience, and long-term career satisfaction.
Holt-Lunstad emphasized that mentorship, collaboration, and community are not simply professional benefits but are essential to maintaining well-being and effectiveness in the practice of law.
Her message resonated with convention attendees, reinforcing the importance of building supportive professional networks in a demanding profession.
New Research Highlights Safety Concerns in the Legal Profession
One of the most significant discussions of the day came from attorney and mediator Stephen D. Kelson, who presented the results of the 2026 survey on violence in the Utah legal community, marking the 20th anniversary of his original statewide study.
The survey, completed by 1,593 attorneys representing 12.4 percent of the Bar’s in-state membership, revealed that 703 respondents reported experiencing threats or violence related to their legal work, including 58 incidents of physical assault.
Kelson noted that threats occur across the profession and affect both men and women at similar overall rates. However, the nature of the threats differs.
“Women reported a higher number of threats that were sexual in nature,” Kelson said, highlighting an important difference in how harassment manifests within the profession.
The research also showed that attorneys practicing in family law, criminal prosecution, criminal defense, and general practice reported the highest rates of threats, reflecting the emotionally charged disputes often present in those areas of law.
Utah State Bar President Kim Cordova emphasized that protecting the safety and well-being of judges and lawyers is essential to maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
“The safety and well-being of those who serve in the justice system matters deeply,” Cordova said. “Protecting their well-being is essential to maintaining a justice system that functions fairly for everyone.”
Bar leaders announced that the organization plans to offer safety training for attorneys and judges in the coming months, focused on recognizing and responding to threats both in person and online.
Conversations with the Courts
The midday program featured a panel discussion with members of the Utah Supreme Court and the Utah Court of Appeals, offering convention attendees an opportunity to hear directly from the judiciary about current issues affecting the courts and the administration of justice.
The session included Justices Paige Petersen, Diana Hagen, and John Nielsen, along with Presiding Judge Michele Christiansen Forster and Judge John D. Luthy.
The panel also included the presentation of the 2025 Judge of the Year Award, recognizing outstanding judicial service of Judge Forster.
The afternoon breakout sessions addressed emerging trends in the profession, including the increasing role of technology and artificial intelligence in legal work.
Sessions explored topics such as digital estate planning and electronic wills, pro bono and access to justice initiatives, and the ethical responsibilities lawyers face when using generative AI tools.
Together, the discussions reflected how rapidly the practice of law continues to evolve—and the importance of helping attorneys adapt to those changes.
Looking Ahead
As the convention concluded, the conversations throughout the two-day event reflected a shared commitment to strengthening the profession through collaboration, education, and service.
From discussions about well-being and professional relationships to research on the safety of legal professionals and conversations with the judiciary, the convention underscored the essential role lawyers play in maintaining a justice system that is trusted by the public.
By continuing to invest in practical training, professional connection, and the safety of those who serve in the legal system, the Bar aims to support attorneys across the state while reinforcing the integrity of the justice system for the communities they serve.
We are pleased to recognize Thomas J. Bayles of ProvenLaw, PLLC as President-Elect. Bayles will serve in that role during the 2026 to 2027 fiscal year and will assume the presidency for the 2027 to 2028 term. His professional background and commitment to the legal community position him to help lead the Bar through a period of continued growth and service.
