Posted: December 20, 2018
Rules Governing the State Bar – Comment Period Closed February 3, 2019
USB14-0302. Definitions. New. This is part of an effort to codify Standing Order No. 7, which established a program of professionalism counseling for members of the Utah State Bar. This rule provides the definitions used in Rule 14-303.
USB14-0303. Professionalism and Civility Counseling. New. This is part of an effort to codify Standing Order No. 7, which established a program of professionalism counseling for members of the Utah State Bar. This rule provides for the composition of the Professionalism and Civility Counseling Board, the Board’s authority and responsibilities, and the procedures surrounding the submission and resolution of complaints.
USB14-0510. Prosecution and appeals. Amend. Updates references to Standing Order No. 7 to new Rule 14-303.
This entry was posted in -Rules Governing the State Bar, -Rules Governing the State Bar, USB14-0302, -Rules Governing the State Bar, USB14-0303, -Rules Governing the State Bar, USB14-0510.
USB14-0303, line 30
change “complainant” to ” complaint”
USB14-0510, line 22
add “and Civility” after Professionalism
Professionalism was originally a goal, Bar members being encouraged to aspire to more cordial and respectful interaction. Then rules followed, but they were also suggestive and aspirational. This new step is moving it along further, and shows the inevitable creep from suggestion to compulsion. Without naming names, when I was first admitted to practice some of the most highly thought of lawyers in Utah were mean, junk-yard dog litigators who took no prisoners. I doubt any of them could retain a license to practice in the direction things are headed. Of course, the rules of professional conduct back then allowed us to “zealously” represent clients (which we are no longer allowed to do). I’m not sure we’re benefiting the public, improving the outcome of litigation, or guaranteeing the right outcome by REQUIRING courtesy through rule-making, and ultimately rule enforcement and coercion. Why can’t we take a little verbal abuse from an opponent? Why isn’t a clearly put, well-framed insult not the best way to make a point at times? Should we be mandating snow-flakery (which is exactly where this is going)?
Does this make the Bar’s Ethics Advisory Opinion redundant? Is there any coordination between two bodies both of which are issuing ethics opinions published in the Bar Journal. It seems as if the bar committee would be superseded and no longer necessary.
USB 14-0303 is not needed. Indeed, it is guaranteed to (a) increase animosty among members of the Bar (b) add to the burdens attorneys must already deal with concerning complaints from whomever may wish to file a complaint, and (c) delay the prosecution of cases because of the added conflict and some perceived need by the Bar and attorneys to have someone decide if certain courtesies have not been extended when someone feels they should have been, or someone has not been treated the way they think they should have been. Nobody gets along splendidly well with everyone, all the time, Now and then people are going to get into an argument, angry things are going to be said, feelings are going to be hurt. Deal with it! You’re going to see disputes over whether certain courtesies should be extennded, and frankly, that is somethine that needs to be learned, and whether such courtesies should be extended is often subjectivbe and should not be subject to some committee’s review. If need be, that is what the courts are for. Any such issues between attorneys should not be subject to further Big Brother oversight by the Bar, nor should it be a tool available because some poor soul got his or her feelings hurt. The Bar and courts need to back out of the lives of attorneys and the private dealings between them. Such added intrustions are both ill advised an unwarranted.