Wednesday, 9 December, 2020

Supreme Court Halts Consideration and Authorization of Bare Referral Fees

Allowing lawyers to enter into new and varied business arrangements to increase innovation and efficiency in Utah’s legal market and thereby increase access to justice is a central goal of the Court’s regulatory reform efforts. Permitting lawyers to share fees with nonlawyers is an aspect of these efforts. Thus, the Court, on September 1, 2020, authorized the sharing of reasonable fees with nonlawyers within the oversight of the regulatory reform Sandbox. It has become apparent, however, that the payment of referral fees—compensation paid to nonlawyers for the sole purpose of ensuring the referral of legal work—presents potential ethical challenges for lawyers and needs further consideration by the Court.

Referral Fee Statement

Tuesday, 1 December, 2020

Annual Food and Clothing Drive

Tuesday, 1 December, 2020

Utah Justice Coalition Survey

Utah Attorney Survey

Utah Justice Coalition ( is running a survey of Utah Attorneys to see what opportunities are available to assist indigent communities, UJC is working on a pro bono and low bono Justice Clinic in partnership with law school students to connect with everyday Utahns and provide legal support.  Would you mind taking our survey?

Tuesday, 6 October, 2020



Salt Lake City, UT— Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant has issued an updated Administrative Order. The order offers further direction on warrants, bench trials, and eviction cases during the pandemic.

The Utah Courts remain open and available to the public while balancing the health and safety of court patrons, court staff, and judges. Toward that goal, the Utah Judicial Council has established three levels of court operations (Red, Yellow, Green), based on safety recommendations established by the Centers for Disease Control and the Utah Department of Health. While most hearings are being conducted remotely, some are now in-person, depending on a court’s risk level. Since March, courts have conducted over 140,000 remote proceedings on more than 63,000 District Court cases. Courts approved for in-person hearings and jury trials under the Yellow Phase currently include those in: Box Elder, Rich, Davis, Juab, Millard, Beaver, Iron, Piute, Sevier, Emery, Daggett, and Uintah. Courts in Salt Lake, Summit, Utah, Washington, Garfield, Kane, Sanpete, Wayne, Carbon, Grand, and San Juan counties have been approved to move from Red to Yellow when COVID case numbers decrease in those counties. The COVID Alerts and Information page contains more information.

Tuesday, 6 October, 2020


2020 Diploma Privilege Candidates find success through service by devoting time to pro bono efforts at the Timpanogos Legal Center. Watch this short clip to learn more.


Thursday, 9 July, 2020


Salt Lake City, UT— The Utah Judiciary belongs to the people of Utah. The work of the courts is to provide an open, fair, efficient and independent system to advance access to justice under the law. Fairness is the basic premise of our system of justice. The goal is a fair process that produces a just result. The goal cannot be achieved in a system tainted by racism and bias.

Today, the Utah Judicial Council, as part of its ongoing commitment to identify and eradicate racism and bias from the judicial system, announced the establishment of the Office of Fairness and Accountability. The Office is created to organize and lead the Utah courts in examining and addressing racism and other forms of bias within the system. The Office will work collaboratively both within the courts, and with individuals and entities outside the system, including the Executive and Legislative branches of government. It will focus on, among other items, outreach to marginalized communities; data collection and research; and judge and employee education.

The Office will enhance the Judiciary’s efforts to address inequities and to provide greater access to our courts; especially for those who, whether due to race, socio-economic status or some other factor, have been marginalized or have otherwise been unable to access the rule of law on equal footing with their fellow Americans.

We hope that, now, more than ever, we can receive increased public input regarding how we can continue to reform as we strive toward the more perfect Union our constitution promises.

Tuesday, 30 June, 2020


Utah’s Judicial Branch, through a new Administrative Order, has adopted a Risk Response Plan that sets forth safety and operational requirements for courts as they move through three risk phases: Red, Yellow, and Green. The plan also includes guidelines for conducting jury trials and Juvenile Court hearings.

The risk phases for the courts are not the same as the Governor’s risk phases. The courts created a pandemic response plan in September 2009, adopting three risk phases at that time.

While the Judicial Branch takes into account the Governor’s color coded risk phases as it considers court operations, it has chosen a more cautious approach because it recognizes that among the three branches of government, the courts have the power to compel people to appear in court, either for a hearing, or for jury service.

Currently, all court locations are operating under the Red phase. This means, critical court functions continue, and courts are conducting many other criminal and civil proceedings, but most hearings and services are being done remotely. Jury trials will not resume until a court moves into the Yellow phase, and then only if strict safety protocols are followed.

The new Risk Response Plan lays out a process by which courts in a county may seek approval from the Judicial Council to move to the Yellow phase. The council will approve the request to move to the Yellow phase when the local health department confirms that the rate of transmission for the county in which the court is located is consistently decreasing, or is stable at a level well below the level that would overwhelm the Utah healthcare system. Courts can resume in-person operations under the Yellow phase if the appropriate safeguards outlined in the Risk Response Plan are followed. Based on recommendations from state health officials, the courts do not anticipate any court transitioning to the Green phase in the foreseeable future. The Court’s administrative order can be read here.



Thursday, 18 June, 2020


The Utah Supreme Court invites comments to the following proposed rule amendments. The comment period expires August 1, 2020.

Rules of Professional Conduct

Public Service

RPC06.05. Short-term Limited Legal Services. AMEND. Broadens the term “short-term legal services” to include one-time consultations and representations through government- and law school-sponsored programs. Further provides that other lawyers in a firm are not disqualified from representing clients whose interests are adverse to a client who received short-term limited legal services from a lawyer in the firm if (1) the lawyer who provided the services is timely screened from the adverse clients’ matters, and (2) receives no fees from those matters.

Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession

RPC08.04. Misconduct. AMEND. Provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is an unlawful, discriminatory, or retaliatory employment practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Utah Antidiscrimination Act. “Employer” means any person or entity that employs one or more persons. The amendments also provide that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to egregiously violate, or engage in a pattern of repeated violations, of the Standards of Professionalism and Civility if such violations harm the lawyer’s client or another lawyer’s client or are prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Rules Governing the Utah State Bar

Standards of Professionalism and Civility
USB14-0301. Standards of Professionalism and Civility. AMEND. Rule 8.4(h) makes the provisions of this rule mandatory for all lawyers. Amendments further provide that lawyers shall avoid hostile, demeaning, humiliating, or discriminatory conduct in law-related activities. Law-related activities include, but are not limited to, settlement negotiations; depositions; mediations; court appearances; CLE’s; events sponsored by the Bar, Bar sections, or Bar associations; and firm parties. Discriminatory conduct includes all discrimination against protected classes as those classes are enumerated in the Utah Antidiscrimination Act of 1965, Utah Code section 34A-5-106(1)(a), and federal statutes, as amended from time to time.
How to View Redline Text of the Proposed Amendment
To see the proposed rule amendments and submit comments, click on this link:, then click on the rule number.

How to Submit Comments
You can comment and view the comments of others by clicking on the “CONTINUE READING” link associated with each body of rules. After clicking on the “CONTINUE READING” link, you will be asked for your name and your email address. The comment website is public but your email address will not be published. Each comment must be approved by the site administrator before it will show on the public website. Although all comments will be considered, they will not be acknowledged with a response. If you have any questions, please contact the committee staff person. The list of committees and staff persons may be found at:

Wednesday, 29 April, 2020

Bar Announces 2020 Election Results

The Utah State Bar’s 2020 election results are in. Heather Thuet is the Bar’s new President-elect. Marty Moore was elected commissioner from the First Division and Traci Gunderson, Andrew Morse and Mark Morris were elected commissioners from the Third Division. Thanks to all who participated.

Friday, 24 April, 2020


Salt Lake City, UT — The Utah Supreme Court has recognized the lack of affordable legal services can be devastating for many people. Between free but limited legal aid, and standard attorney service that can easily exceed $200 an hour, there are few options for affordable legal help.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of finding new, affordable, and high-quality innovations as quickly as possible.

That is why the Supreme Court is offering expedited review and approval of proposals from individuals and entities who believe they can offer low-cost, or no-cost, legal advice for small businesses, people with unemployment issues, and others.

“Americans need and deserve access to affordable legal services,” said Utah Supreme Court Justice Deno Himonas, who heads the Utah Implementation Task Force on Regulatory Reform. “For decades, we in the legal profession have tried to volunteer ourselves across the access-to-justice gap. Under that approach, we’ve witnessed the gap grow into a crisis. And now COVID-19 and its aftermath threaten so many of us with severe legal consequences. The Utah Supreme Court’s regulatory reform efforts offer a way to harness innovation and market forces to improve the delivery of much-needed legal services to all.”

Today, the Utah Supreme Court announced the proposed set of comprehensive regulatory reforms. The announcement comes after many months of careful work and study by a group of state and national legal experts.

A pilot regulatory sandbox has been created to provide a safe space for experimentation while being monitored for safety and effectiveness. An Office of Legal Services Innovation will be created to assist the Utah Supreme Court with respect to overseeing and regulating the practice of law by nontraditional legal service providers or by traditional providers offering nontraditional legal services.

The proposed reforms are the first in a series of changes that will open up Utah’s legal industry to new and more modern ways of offering legal advice at a lower cost. The goal is to fill in the access-to-justice gap with a variety of new, forward-thinking, services for Utah residents. Last year, the Supreme Court approved the Licensed Paralegal Professional. An LPP can help people with family and debt collection matters, such as divorce, civil stalking, custody and support, and small claims cases. Moving forward, the Supreme Court is expecting more innovations will be forthcoming.

Click here for the proposed rule changes: