Rule Governing the Utah State Bar – Comment Period Closed January 29, 2024

MCLE Rule Amendments

Utah Supreme Court Board of Continuing Legal Education

Proposals to move Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Rules from Chapter 14, Article 4 to Chapter 11 in a new Article 6; to repeal Chapter 14, Article 4; to then renumber rules referenced in new Article 6;  Moving the article from the chapter entitled “Rules Governing the Utah State Bar, to the chapter entitled “General Provisions.” will help to clarify the common misunderstanding of who is responsible for the requirements of legal education.  The change will be a good step to help lawyers distinguish the responsibility of the Court from the activities of the Bar.

Article 6; to clarify Board governance and make duties more transparent; The current rule does not include “the Director” in the definitions.  Including the description will help to clarify that the Director is appointed by the Court and is supervised by the Board.

Finalize instruction included in professionalism and civility; and confirm the requirements for Well-being CLE.

Expanding the definition of accredited “Professionalism and civility CLE” to include instruction on Well-being, teaching time and law practice management; incorporating the term “substance use disorder” and permitting learning about diversity, equity and inclusion.

Increasing the time period from six months to twelve months that lawyers and paralegal practitioners may remain on inactive status without complying the annual CLE requirements to ensure that they are completing the hours of required CLE.

Technical amendments to clarify that the total number of Board members is ten, excluding any additional emeritus members; and to formalize that a quorum for taking action is six.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
3 thoughts on “Rule Governing the Utah State Bar – Comment Period Closed January 29, 2024
  1. David Wood

    I fail to see how studying DIE- diversity, inclusion and equity -which is nothing more than Marxism with lipstick, has any significance ion enhancing our professionalism as members of the state bar. This ideology is antithetical towards our foundational constitutional principles of liberty and justice for all. I would scrap that piece of junk as fast as any other illegal and unconstitutional race, sex, gender, religious, ethnic or other preference system. DIE and its accompanying “woke” ideology is the antithesis of Dr. King’s beautiful vision of an America where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Let’s study that speech instead!

  2. Aaron Dodd

    If we are going to leave behind meritocracy and adopt “diversity, equity and inclusion”, will we be punished by the Bar if we question DEI or explore its detrimental impact on society? Will we be allowed to express or teach contrary viewpoints, such as those raised by Bill Ackman in his tweet found here:
    I support learning various viewpoints, especially those that are contrary to what I believe are necessary to create a more perfect union. However, the founders of DEI proclaim you are either racist or anti-racist, and opponents of DEI are shouted down and cancelled.
    So will I be shouted down and cancelled by the Bar or members of the Bar when I provide facts at a future CLE that show the dangers of DEI?

  3. Matt Howell

    Even the University of Utah is moving away from DEI. The Bar should not be moving into it. The only political stance the Bar should be pushing is support of the Constitution.