SALT LAKE CITY – The Eighth District Judicial Nominating Commission has selected nominees for a vacancy on the Eighth District Juvenile Court. This position results from the appointment of Judge Ryan Evershed to the Second District Juvenile Court on Nov. 20, 2024.
The nominees for the vacancy are: Jarell Dillman, Attorney, Uintah County; Aliisa Leon, Prosecutor, City of Orem; Eric Stott, Office Director/Administrative Law Judge, Utah Department of Health and Human Services; Michelle Sullivan, Attorney Guardian ad Litem, Office of Guardian ad Litem; and Jordan Van Oostendorp, Attorney, Sam, Reynolds & Van Oostendorp.
Written comments can be submitted to the Eighth District Judicial Nominating Commission at judicialvacancies@utah.gov or Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, P.O. Box 142330, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2330. The deadline for written comments is noon on March 31, 2025. The Nominating Commission may request further information or conduct an investigation of the nominees after reviewing public comments. After the public comment period, the names will be sent to Gov. Spencer J. Cox, who will have 30 days to make an appointment. Gov. Cox’s appointee is subject to confirmation by the Utah Senate.
###
ROBERT CARROLL | Director of Communications OFFICE OF GOV. SPENCER J. COX STATE OF UTAH 801-243-2290
Willard, Utah—Applications are being accepted for a part-time justice court judge position that will serve Willard, Utah. The successful candidate will replace Judge Kevin Christensen who has resigned his position.
To be considered for a justice court judgeship in Box Elder County, candidates must be at least 25 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a Utah resident for at least three years, and have a degree from a law school that would make one eligible to apply for admission to a bar in any state in the United States. In addition, applicants must be a resident of Box Elder County or an adjacent county either upon appointment or before taking the bench.
Information on judicial retention and performance evaluation is posted on the Utah State Court’s website at www.utcourts.gov under employment opportunities. An application for judicial office form must be completed and is available on the court’s website (https://legacy.utcourts.gov/employment). The salary range for the position is $24,556 to $31,527 per year and does not include benefits. For additional information about working for Willard, email Jeremy Kimpton, Willard City Manager, at jkimpton@willardcityut.gov or call him at (435) 734-9881.
The deadline for applications is Monday, April 14, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Applications cannot be submitted after the deadline. For questions about the justice courts or the process for filling this position, email Jim Peters, Justice Court Administrator, at jamesp@utcourts.gov.
Utah law requires the Judicial Nominating Commission to submit at least three nominees to Mayor Mote within 45 days of its first meeting. Mayor Mote will then have 30 days in which to select a finalist. His selection must then be ratified by the Willard City Council and certified by the Utah Judicial Council.
SALT LAKE CITY, March 3, 2025 – After a tumultuous legislative session, the judiciary and the legislature have come to an agreement related to HB 512 – Judicial Retention Changes and SB 296 – Judicial Amendments. The Bar is supportive of the Court’s agreement. The Bar wishes to express its relief and thank the Legislature for withdrawing HB 512. The withdrawal of HB 512 preserves the independence of the judiciary and maintains the Constitution’s separation of powers between our co-equal branches of government. The Bar understands that the Judicial Council will remain neutral on SB 296, which permits the Governor to appoint the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Bar will also take a neutral position on this bill. We understand that both the Judicial Council and the Legislature released letters today outlining the above actions and positions.
The Bar wishes to thank the lawyers and law firms who put in so much time and effort to speak with legislators, write letters, hold press conferences, and conduct legislative meetings to express support for an independent judiciary. The Bar also thanks the Commissioners and the Bar’s Governmental Relations Committee for their work this session analyzing bills and taking positions when appropriate. Legislators listened, and combined efforts made a difference.
This result came about with the leadership of Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, Deputy State Court Administrator Michael Dreschel, and other Court leadership.
Finally, the Bar acknowledges the efforts of several key lawmakers, including Sen. Brammer, Rep. Teuscher, Rep. Lisonbee, legislative leadership, and those lawyer legislators who worked behind the scenes to find resolution. The Bar is looking forward to facilitating any committees or work groups that are created to reach the goal that allows the branches to promote judicial access and assist the Courts in being able to be efficient and productive.
The document below contains the same information as this post and can be downloaded.
About the Utah State Bar The Utah State Bar was formalized in 1931 to manage and regulate the legal profession by licensing all people who engage in the practice of law. The Bar Commission is made up of lawyers from each judicial district who are elected by the lawyers in those districts.
SALT LAKE CITY, February 28, 2025 ― When Utahns go to court, we go to receive decisions on some of life’s most important and complex problems ― the well-being of our children, at school or at home, whether we treated a colleague or neighbor legally or fairly, the fate of a business we worked hard to buy, or to build, and, sometimes, whether a law legitimately passed by the duly elected representatives of the people is consistent with or violative of the constitution.
And when we take those problems to court, we do so knowing only one thing: not that we will definitely win, or that the other side will surely lose, but that our problem will be heard by a judge with a trained and open mind, that we will be treated with respect by the court and its staff, and that the law as it is understood by the judge will be applied and followed, free from influence and beholden only to the law.
The courts’ promise to us is not one of outcome, but of process ― a promise that, win or lose, we will be heard, our position understood, and our claims and arguments considered ― and so will those of the other side.
To fulfill this promise, Utah’s judges leave meaningful careers as lawyers, after years of training in Utah’s law firms, Utah’s justice system, and the Utah courts, to make the decisions we entrust to them. When they are chosen to serve through Utah’s merit-based judicial selection system, our judges are assured only that there will be a never-ending supply of work to do; that at least one litigant in each matter will disagree with their ruling; that they will not have to raise funds, make campaign promises, or espouse political positions in order to continue to serve; and that they will be afforded the freedom to use their knowledge and experience to apply the law to the facts impartially.
And that freedom, that judicial independence, is all the more important when it comes to the courts’ obligation to resolve difficult questions with important but nevertheless not always clear answers, about which reasonable minds can disagree.
The citizens of Utah seem to understand this promise of a fair process, and not of a particular outcome. Based on the bills aimed at the judiciary that have been proposed this session, the Utah legislature does not.
For years, the Utah courts have surveyed court users about their perceptions of the courts’ fairness and accessibility. For years, those survey results have overwhelmingly shown that, win or lose, court users felt that they understood what happened in their case, that they were treated with courtesy and respect, that the judge listened to all sides, and that, most important of all, their hearing was fair.[1]
And since 2008, Utah’s non-partisan Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (“JPEC”) has conducted robust professional reviews of every state judge who stands for retention election — and like the court user surveys, these reviews are based on surveys of attorneys who appear before the judges, win or lose. JPEC reviews judges’ legal ability, integrity and temperament, administrative skills, and procedural fairness. Its recommendations also are informed by public comments, judicial discipline records, and other formal performance measures. Under (current) law, no more than half of JPECs members can be of the same political party. And JPEC’s judge-by-judge results are not only published on the JPEC website, they are provided directly to voters in the official voter information pamphlets. So Utah’s voters both have this important information about our judges’ performance, and they use it – consistently voting to retain our judges at very high rates.
Information voters need to vote for or against the retention of judges already exists in Utah. A non-partisan, informed and rigorous process for the review of judicial performance, and a democratic standard for judicial retention by majority vote, already exist. And given that Utah’s less than 90 district court judges received well over 250,000 new case filings in 2024[2], perhaps the best way to ensure that the courts are responsive to the people would be to increase the number of district court judges and law clerks, so they can quickly but thoroughly decide the many cases we bring to them for decision, not to expand (or micromanage) the Utah Supreme Court.
It has been said that the bills before the legislature this session represent an attempt to bring the judiciary closer to the people. But the people already have created a system that has resulted in some of the best lawyers in Utah becoming judges. Fundamentally altering a non-partisan, merit-based system of judicial selection, review and retention by the electorate — that is, the people who use Utah’s courts in hundreds of thousands of new case filings every year ― should be the result of deliberate and sustained study, if at all, not disagreement with the outcome of specific judicial decisions.
Signed,
Justice Christine Durham (Ret.)
Access to Justice Commission Co-Chair
Amy Sorenson
Access to Justice Commission Co-Chair
[1] Utah State Courts Access and Fairness Survey, FY 2006-2017, https://www.utcourts.gov/en/court-records-publications/publications/court-publications/court-reports.html#additional
The Utah State Bar is sharing a letter with consent that Chief Justice Matthew Durrant presented to Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz on Thursday. The letter states the judiciary’s opposition to House Bill 512 and was sent to all legislators.
Salt Lake City, February 25, 2025 – Following Monday’s House Judiciary Standing Committee’s 7-2 vote on House Bill 512 – Judicial Retention Changes, the Utah State Bar is strengthening its opposition in a not-so-veiled attempt by the Legislature to put its thumb on the scale in judicial retention elections. The bill’s sponsor, House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, said in the meeting before the committee vote that candidates are identified with political affiliations so voters know what to expect to inform voters in their decision making and that “judges should, too.”
However, the information that voters would get comes from the bill’s proposed politically driven Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance. This new committee, composed solely of nine legislators, would override the establishedJudicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC), which the legislature created in 2008 to provide a balanced, transparent, and data-driven evaluation of judges.Unlike JPEC, which evaluates judges based on well-defined criteria—including courtroom management, judicial temperament, integrity, legal ability, and caseload management—the proposed legislative committee could base its recommendations on subjective opinions and political biases.
Rather than reinforcing JPEC’s role in educating voters, the bi-partisan legislative committee that chooses to recommend — or not recommend — a judge for retention, has its opinion printed next to a judge’s name on the ballot. This action allowed in the bill is contrary to state law (20A-3a-501(1)(a)), which prohibits campaigning at polling places. The Bar views this provision in the bill to be an underhanded way of persuading voters to vote based on political preferences and may potentially force a judge to campaign against the committee’s unfavorable recommendation to keep his or role on the bench.
Attorney, former Bar President, former JPEC Chair, and former Republican legislator Rep. V. Lowry Snow (2012-2022) was among the architects of JPEC beginning with a task force in 2007. He issued the following statement:
“Lawyers of all political stripes understand that our democracy demands that judges be able to make decisions based on the facts and law before them and not based on partisan political considerations. Certainly, no judge should fear being voted out for issuing a decision with which politicians may disagree.
JPEC was formed to promote both public accountability and performance improvement for judges with non-partisan, objective, and proven performance standards. Utah’s JPEC is a model for the nation and is supported by data that shows judges with no retention recommendations often step down before facing election, new judges with some low marks go on to improve their performance, and that the public uses JPEC to guide them when voting on judges standing for retention.”
He continued, “House Bill 512 undermines JPEC by allowing the legislature to weigh in on judicial retention for political purposes. Equally troubling is the fact that the legislature’s recommendation will appear next to the judge’s name on the ballot giving the legislature an unfair and constitutionally improper way of influencing judicial retention elections.”
The Bar echoes his sentiments adding that the sweeping authority that HB 512 gives could lead to partisan scrutiny of judges for rulings that legislators disagree with, undermining judicial independence and due process. Judges could be subjected to public hearings based on unverified complaints, placing them at risk of being judged in the court of public opinion rather than through established legal procedures.
The Bar’s opposition to this bill and others follows a rigorous, democratic process. The Bar’s Governmental Relations Committee (GRC), which includes representatives from all 38 law sections, meets weekly to assess legislative concerns. After discussion and voting, the GRC’s recommendations are reviewed by the Utah State Board of Bar Commissioners, elected by attorneys across the state. The Board then determines appropriate actions, including lobbying efforts, public statements, and legislative updates to legal professionals.
The Bar’s positions on additional bills are listed below:
SB 203: Proposes significant changes to traditional common law on “standing,” restricting Utahns’ ability to challenge laws that may be unconstitutional.
SB 296: Allows executive and legislative branches to interfere with leadership selection for the Utah Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, weakening judicial independence.
SJR 4: Authorize legislative auditors in Utah to compel disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications.
SJR 9: Significantly reduces the period during which plaintiffs can file challenges against potentially unconstitutional laws.
HB 480:Mandates judge’s ruling in eviction cases to three calendar days after service of the order, thereby removing a judge’s discretion to consider extenuating circumstances.
HB 451: This proposal raises the vote threshold for judicial retention from 50% to 67%, the highest in the nation, making it harder to attract and retain qualified judges. It also gives special interests more influence, as they would only need to sway one-third of voters to remove a judge.
HB 503 & SB 335:Removes the requirement that a claimant submit an affidavit of merit;caps the amount of economic losses a plaintiff can recover to $1 million; obligates the plaintiff and attorney in certain circumstances to pay for incurred attorney fees of the defendant, which impedes access to justice.
About the Utah State Bar The Utah State Bar was formalized in 1931 to manage and regulate the legal profession by licensing all people who engage in the practice of law. The Bar Commission is made up of lawyers from each judicial district who are elected by the lawyers in those districts.
My experience consulting over the years with thousands of attorneys who practice in firms of all shapes and sizes all over the country taught me that the overwhelming majority of attorneys in practice are competent, well-intentioned professionals. To speak in the vernacular, our insureds are good folk. Yet, some of these attorneys have had to deal with a claim or two at some point in their career while others, even a number who were nearing retirement, never did. An interesting question is why. Of course, there are the obvious answers to include occasional missteps like missing a deadline, dabbling in an unfamiliar practice area, an impairment was in play, or poor client selection; but these examples don’t cover it all.
There is another explanation behind some of our claims that is not discussed often enough and, in my opinion, not fully appreciated for the risk it truly is. The misstep is simply getting too comfortable in one’s practice. I call this the comfort trap and the reasons behind it vary. For some, the daily routines of practicing law can become all too familiar and attention to detail starts to wane. For others, routinely working with long-term clients or the same competent staff for years on end can lead to the creation of professional and personal friendships. While this naturally brings about an elevated level of trust; here too, attention to detail can decline over time. Thus, there is a downside that can come with comfort in routines or with long-term clients and trusted staff, and it’s a trap because of the natural development of casualness and informality that all too easily follows.
The downside is this feeling of comfort can lead to a failure to thoroughly document client files. When you allow that to happen, you are setting the trap. It’s failing to document scope of representation with repeat clients because you start to assume the need for this type of documentation is no longer necessary. It’s not wanting to risk offending long-term clients, so you stop using engagement letters and closure letters. It’s failing to continue to use checklists because you have gone through the same series of steps so many times that you’ve come to view checklists as a nuisance. It’s trusting the relationship with your client so much that you now consider capturing and preserving substantive email and test messages as a waste of time. It’s taking shortcuts like not reviewing letters or documents before they’re sent out, failing to confirm that someone’s decision as to when a statute of limitations will run is accurate because your staff really do know what they’re doing, or skipping a formal conflict of interest check because relying on everyone’s memory seems equally effective. It can even be not wanting to document a file with anything at all because you are simply “doing a favor” for a long-term client, a family friend, or a staff member so you don’t view this as formally taking on a new matter.
Feeling confident in your practice and comfortable with your clients and staff is a good thing as long as the level of comfort doesn’t result in a related casualness with file documentation and/or the procedures that get you there. When you begin to rationalize away the need to thoroughly document any given file, you really are setting a trap that can ensnare you at some point further down the road.
If you ever find yourself going in this direction, stop for a moment. Think about what’s going on and make any necessary course corrections. For example, I can accept that a concern over the use of a formal contract each time a long-term client brings a new matter to your firm is legitimate. I get it. You don’t want to risk offending the client. However, the answer is not to simply take away that critical piece of documentation. Come up with an acceptable alternative. Couldn’t you accomplish the same goal by sending a confirming email or informal letter of clarification? Of course you could.
Here’s the bottom line. In the context of a malpractice claim or a disciplinary complaint, the “failure to document” misstep often turns into a word against word dispute. It’s important for you to know and even more important for you to remember that attorneys don’t fare well when that happens. This is why you want to make sure all files are thoroughly documented. Yes, doing so with every client file may take a little extra time; but should you ever find yourself facing a malpractice claim on any one of those files, trust me, you’ll be glad you did. You have my word.
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
SALT LAKE CITY – Gov. Cox has appointed Thaddeus (Tad) May to the Third District Court, filling a vacancy created by Judge Holmberg’s retirement. Judicial appointments are subject to confirmation by the Utah Senate.
“Tad May’s dedication to justice and his extensive experience as a prosecutor make him an excellent choice for the bench,” said Gov. Cox. “From handling complex criminal cases to his work with Utah’s tribal communities, Tad has consistently shown a commitment to fairness and service. I am confident that his background and thoughtful approach will be a great asset to the Third District Court.”
May has served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Utah since 2018, currently holding the position of Deputy Chief of the Violent Crime Unit. A significant part of his work has involved coordinating and overseeing federal prosecutions on tribal lands in Utah, where he has worked closely with Native American communities to address criminal justice issues. He has also served as the Tribal Liaison and has been a faculty trainer for the National Advocacy Center, helping to build relationships across Utah’s tribal communities. Additionally, May has argued major cases, including a murder trial and a large-scale narcotics conspiracy, and has been a key player in federal prosecutions for complex investigations.
“I am grateful to even be considered for this position, but I am beyond honored and humbled to receive this appointment,” said May. “I have spent my career advocating for the citizens of the state of Utah, and I have seen firsthand how judicial decisions have profound impacts on both individual citizens and society at large. My work with Utah’s tribal communities has been particularly meaningful, and I have great respect for the unique challenges these communities face. If confirmed, I will act in accordance with the considerable trust placed within the judiciary. My career has afforded me the opportunity to serve people from every walk of life across this state, and I feel keenly the responsibility of a judge to serve those citizens. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will strive to uphold the law with complete fidelity and to ensure all litigants are granted the dignity the law affords.”
May’s accolades include numerous awards such as the Department of Justice, District of Utah, Program Coordinator of the Year (2022), the DEA Administrator’s Award (2019), and being named Utah’s Legal Elite in 2022.
May earned his law degree from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, where he was the Note and Comment Editor for the Journal of Land Resources and Environmental Law. He holds a BA in History from Brigham Young University.
ROBERT CARROLL | Director of Communications OFFICE OF GOV. SPENCER J. COX STATE OF UTAH 801-243-2290
SALT LAKE CITY, February 19, 2025 – The Utah State Bar Commission understands that attorneys, regardless of political persuasion, care about the separation of powers in our government. Therefore, the Bar is holding firm on its opposition to legislation that jeopardizes judicial independence enshrined in the state constitution. Two recent bills are particularly troubling because they establish a system under which judges will be made to answer to the legislature based on any disagreement with a judge’s ruling.
Specifically, House Bill 512 creates a new committee — a Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance to shadow, and potentially override the work of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC). This bill sponsored by Rep. Karianne Lisonbee is unnecessary given the excellent and transparent work that JPEC is already doing and given that JPEC was created by the Legislature and contains members nominated by leadership from the Legislature, the Governor, and the Chief Justice. The concern expressed by many licensees and our Government Relations Committee is this new entity comprised only of legislators—will inject politics into the current merit-based and nonpartisan judicial evaluation and retention process.
As part of its evaluation, the Committee can request a judge’s disciplinary record from the Judicial Conduct Commission and may investigate “any issue raised by a member of the committee, the Legislature, or a member of the public.” (See H.B. 512, lines 1457-1459.) This broad mandate means that any issue, even a disagreement with a judge’s legal ruling, could trigger an evaluation, regardless of whether there is credible evidence of judicial misconduct or incompetence.
In the evaluation process, the Committee would be required to issue a public news release naming the judge, describing the nature of the review, and soliciting comments from Utah legislators and the public. (See lines 1466-1474.) The Committee would then hold a meeting to discuss the judge’s performance, although parts of the meeting may be closed to the public, and the location may not be near the judge’s jurisdiction. (See lines 1477-1502.)
After this meeting, the Committee may vote to recommend that a judge not be retained, using “any other documents or information related to the judge’s judicial performance” as criteria. The lack of a clear definition of “judicial performance” means that the Committee could base its decision on nearly any subjective factor, such as a lawmaker’s disagreement with a judge’s rulings. (See lines 1507-1516.) These recommendations would then appear on the ballot, potentially influencing voters to reject a judge based on subjective opinions and not objective legal standards. (See lines 579-588; 1526-1539.)
The process is demeaning and of questionable constitutionality. Requiring a judge to answer to a legislative body goes against the core principle of our constitution – a judiciary that can make decisions based on the facts and law without fear of being pilloried in public or removed from the bench.
HB 512 combined with House Bill 412 work to ensure that the proposed new legislative committee will be a partisan body. HB 412 removes the requirement that no more than half of the appointed members on JPEC and the Elected Official and Judicial Compensation Committee be from the same political party. This bill co-sponsored by Rep. Jefferson Burton and Sen. Calvin Musselman would permit members of governing boards and commissions to all be from the same party, removing the long-standing nature of non-partisanship on these boards. We appreciate the efforts of Sen. Brady Brammer, who modified SB 204. The Bar now has a neutral position. However, we remain concerned with SJR 009 sponsored by Sen. Brammer that dictates the timing to obtain an injunction in a trial court. This resolution is inconsistent with SB 204 by giving only 28 days to enjoin an unconstitutional injunction. We are working with Sen. Brammer to address these issues.
We are grateful for the open dialogue and consideration of lawmakers with the Bar’s opposition to proposed legislation. We are committed to continuing to work collaboratively as these bills, and others as they are introduced, move forward in the legislative process. ___________________
About the Utah State Bar The Utah State Bar was formalized in 1931 to manage and regulate the legal profession by licensing all people who engage in the practice of law. The Bar Commission is made up of lawyers from each judicial district who are elected by the lawyers in those districts. The Bar’s Governmental Relations Committee is made up of lawyers from each practice section who meet weekly during the legislative session and vote to recommend to the Commission on whether the Bar should take a position on legislation.
CONTACT Jennifer Weaver Communications Director Utah State Bar Office: 801-746-5237 Cell: 385-329-3558 jweaver@utahbar.org
Kane County, Utah—The deadline for applications for a part-time justice court judge position that will serve Kane County, Utah, has been extended. The position will replace Judge Gary Johnson who will retire at the end of June.
To be considered for a justice court judgeship in Kane County, candidates must be at least 25 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a Utah resident for at least three years, and have a degree from a law school that would make one eligible to apply for admission to a bar in any state in the United States. In addition, applicants must be a resident of Kane County, Garfield County, Iron County, San Juan County or Washington County either upon appointment or before taking the bench.
Information on judicial retention and performance evaluation is posted on the Utah State Court’s website at www.utcourts.gov under employment opportunities. An application for judicial office form must be completed and is available on the court’s website (https://legacy.utcourts.gov/admin/jobs/). The salary range for the position is $53,903 to $69,303 per year. For additional information about working for Kane County, email Rhonda Gant, the Human Resources Director for Kane County, at rgant@kane.utah.gov or call her at (435) 644-4929.
The deadline for applications is Monday, March 31, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Applications cannot be submitted after the deadline. For questions about the justice courts or the process for filling this position, email Jim Peters, Justice Court Administrator, at jamesp@utcourts.gov.
Utah law requires the Judicial Nominating Commission to submit at least three nominees to the Kane County Commission within 45 days of its first meeting. The Commission will then have 30 days in which to select a finalist. Its selection must then be certified by the Utah Judicial Council.
ORIGINAL POST
Kane County, Utah—Applications are being accepted for a part-time justice court judge position that will serve Kane County, Utah. The position will replace Judge Gary Johnson who will retire at the end of June.
To be considered for a justice court judgeship in Kane County, candidates must be at least 25 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a Utah resident for at least three years, and have a degree from a law school that would make one eligible to apply for admission to a bar in any state in the United States. In addition, applicants must be a resident of Kane County, Garfield County, Iron County, San Juan County or Washington County either upon appointment or before taking the bench.
Information on judicial retention and performance evaluation is posted on the Utah State Court’s website at www.utcourts.gov under employment opportunities. An application for judicial office form must be completed and is available on the court’s website (https://legacy.utcourts.gov/employment). The salary range for the position is $53,903 to $69,303 per year. For additional information about working for Kane County, email Rhonda Gant, the Human Resources Director for Kane County, at rgant@kane.utah.gov or call her at 435-644-4929.
The deadline for applications is Friday, March 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Applications cannot be submitted after the deadline. For questions about the justice courts or the process for filling this position, email Jim Peters, Justice Court Administrator, at jamesp@utcourts.gov.
Utah law requires the Judicial Nominating Commission to submit at least three nominees to the Kane County Commission within 45 days of its first meeting. The Commission will then have 30 days in which to select a finalist. Its selection must then be certified by the Utah Judicial Council.
