Code of Judicial Administration

CJA 03-414. Court security. Amend. Correct statutory references.
CJA 04-202.08. Fees for records, information, and services. Amend. Establishes the fee for delivery of documents by outgoing fax.
CJA 07-301. Intake. Amend. Delete erroneous reference to non-judicial adjustment as including a surcharge.
CJA 11-302. Admission pro hac vice. Amend. Exempts from the fee for admission pro hac vice attorneys representing the U.S. government and those representing indigent defendants on a pro bono basis.
CJA 11-304. Pro bono admission for law school faculty lawyers. New. Permits law school faculty member to perform pro bono legal services within this state. Establishes qualifications and procedures.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
8 thoughts on “Code of Judicial Administration
  1. Richard King

    Proposed Rule CJA 11-304 should not be adopted. Law school faculty members should have to be members of the bar to act as attorneys in Utah, just like everyone else. To do otherwise continues to isolate faculty members from the realities faced by bar members, building their ivory tower even higher than it already is. They should have to abide by the same rules applicable to Utah lawyers.

  2. Richard King

    Proposed Rule CJA 11-302 should not be adopted. All lawyers should have to be members of the bar to act as attorneys in Utah, just like everyone else. To do otherwise continues to isolate this class of lawyers from the realities faced by bar members, building their ivory tower even higher than it already is. They should have to abide by the same rules applicable to Utah lawyers.

  3. Dan Floyd

    Rule CJA 11-302 This rule tacitly suggests that there is no reason for an independent Utah State Bar. If an otherwise competent and perhaps brilliant legal mind licensed in another state is ineligible to perform pro bono service in Utah or to appear before the courts of Utah without a proper Utah license, what exegesis could credibly change such a party to competent before the state by virtue of bestowal of a teaching post? Potentially, non-attorneys (e.g. a university presidents) could effect bypassing the Utah State Bar through their hiring practices and allow someone from another state to practice law in Utah without that attorney understanding Utah law. If Utah does not need Utah State Bar screening in one case, for the same reason the state does not need it in the other.
    This rule is not fair to otherwise qualified attorneys of other states. This rule is not fair to the citizens of Utah that expect practicing attorneys in Utah to have Utah State Bar credentials. Average citizens, not to mention the courts, should be able to rely on the attorneys that appear before the state, in any capacity, to have a basic fundamental knowledge of Utah state law. Is not the Utah State Bar charged with ensuring that?
    Dan Floyd
    West Jordan, UT

  4. john pace

    11-302(d)(2) should be adopted. Every study (along with common sense) confirms that indigent people do not enjoy access to the justice system. That is unacceptable. Moreover, adoption of (d)(2) obviates the need to approve 11-304.
    11-304 should not be adopted. If 302(d)(2) is adopted, then the only obstacle to providing pro bono legal services to INDIGENT clients is the paperwork required to apply for pro hac vice status. More importantly, “pro bono” representation includes representation of organizations with extreme ideological positions. It is not limited to the representation of people who are indigent. If Professor Doe wants to take an ideological stand in state court, fine — just make him/her join the bar or pay the fee for pro hac vice admission.
    If 11-304 were limited to the representation of indigent clients, it would be less objectionable.
    We who enjoy the professional monopoly on the practice of law in Utah are ethically required to ensure that people who are indigent enjoy access to justice. If we Utah lawyers cannot do the job in Utah, we must facilitate the ability of others to do so. (We do not, however, have to subsidize a professor who wants to represent the Mountain States Legal Foundation or some left wing counterpart.)

  5. Richard Hutchins

    CJA 11-304 It appears that the ONLY purpose of this rule is to address some UNKNOWN request/demand by some law-school faculty!!! What is the purpose (and motivation) for their request??? Do we have an over-abundance of law-school faculty (who are not properly licensed in Utah — AND WHO CAN’T GET LICENSED) wanting to do a lot of pro-bono work in Utah??? I would submit that there must be some unkown ulterior motive for such a selective change to the rules!!! It seems suspicious to me!!!

  6. Linda F. Smith

    I write in support of CJA11-304 but propose one slight addition.
    This rule is a small but useful step in expanding access to justice by inviting law faculty licensed in other jurisdicitons to accept pro bono cases here. It is particularly good that such practice is not limited to pro bono cases referred from existing providers (e.g. Utah Legal Services), as was the rule permitting inactive attorneys to handle pro bono cases. It is needed because most law facutly are recruited nationally, are members of other state bars, and have limited ability to integrate themselves with the practicing bench and bar. This offers a way to do that and to provide needed services.
    The one change I would suggest relates to paragraph 5 Prohibition of Compensation. It should be clarified that this rule will not prevent fees being order based upon the law professor’s legal work, so long as they are paid to a private non-profit organization. In many cases the law professor may volunteer with or through such an agency and it would be counter-productive to eliminate the possibility of the losing party owing fees to the agency for the work of the law professor / litigator.
    Thank you for your consideration.

  7. Gary Sackett

    I believe this rule is consistent with good public policy and should be adopted. A faculty member at an accredited Utah law school may not be a member of the Utah State Bar, but such a person should be permitted to advance the public good by providing pro bono services. The proposed rule appears to provide appropriate safeguards to prevent any abuse of this limited “license.”
    The pro bono representation of clients by faculty members constitutes the “practice of law” under Rule 1.0, but, for non-Utah Bar members, is currently deemed unauthorized practice (in the absence of a pro hac vice admission). The proposed rule solves this problem and should be adopted.
    It should also be “linked” to the overall practice-of-law framework recently adopted by the Supreme Court to separate authorized from unauthorized practice in Rule 1.0, Chapter 13a of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration.
    The following subsection (c)(13) should be added to Rule 1.0 of Chapter 13a to provide the necessary connection:
    (c) Whether or not it constitutes the practice of law, the following activity by a non-lawyer, who is not otherwise claiming to be a lawyer or to be able to practice law, is permitted: . . . .
    (c)(13) Representing clients on a pro bono basis pursuant to the provisions of Rule 11-304 of the Code of Judicial Administration applicable to certain full-time law-school faculty lawyers.