Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment – Page 12 – The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number. To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.” Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.

Posted: May 5, 2022

Rules of Appellate Procedure – Comment Period Closed June 19, 2022

The Committee proposes amending the listed rules to (1) add “or declaration” any time affidavit is mentioned; (2) add an Advisory Committee Note explaining that the term “declaration” refers to the unsworn declaration described in Title 78b, Chapter 18a, Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act; (3) move the reference to the statute in Rule 37 to an Advisory Committee Note so the rules will be consistent; and (4) remove language in Rules 8 and 17 regarding other sworn statements.

URAP008. Stay or injunction pending appeal.

URAP017. Stay pending review.

URAP023B. Motion to remand for findings necessary to determination of ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

URAP029. Oral argument.

URAP037. Suggestion of mootness; voluntary dismissal.

Posted: April 7, 2022

Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment Period Closed May 22, 2022

URCP026.01. Disclosure and discovery in domestic relations actions. AMEND. There was a potential for ambiguity between the deadlines stated in URCP 26 and 26.1 for service of initial disclosures in domestic relations actions. The change to the first line in part (b) provides clarification.

URCP076. Notice of contact information change. AMEND. Further change to the last amendment adding “or other court order” to the last line after protective order and stalking injunction.

Posted: March 28, 2022

Rules of Professional Practice – Comment Period Closed May 12, 2022

RPP11-0581. Sanctions. Amend. Clarifies that if a lawyer is placed on probation the status of probation is public, but the terms of their probation may be private.

RPP11-0582. Factors to be considered in imposing sanctions. Amend. This amendment requires the factfinder to consider the presumptive sanctions set forth in the rules, along with any mitigating and aggravating factors. This amendment also adds a section to provide guidance when multiple instances of misconduct are found.

RPP11-0583. Imposition of sanctions. Repeal/Replace with New Rules. This amendment repeals existing rule 11-583 addressing appropriate sanctions and replaces it with four new rules (rules 11-583 through 11-586) that set forth presumptive sanctions based on the nature of the duty violated.

RPP11-0583. Presumptive sanctions for violating duties owed to clients. New. This new rule provides presumptive sanctions to be imposed upon finding that the lawyer violated duties owed to clients, including candor, competence, diligence, conflicts of interest, and failing to preserve a client’s property and confidence.

RPP11-0584. Presumptive sanctions for violating duties owed to the public. New. This new rule provides presumptive sanctions to be imposed upon finding that the lawyer failed to maintain personal integrity, generally, by committing a criminal act. Additionally, this new rule provides presumptive sanctions for violations of Rule 3.8, Special responsibilities of a prosecutor.

RPP11-0585. Presumptive sanctions for violating duties owed to the legal system. New. This new rule provides presumptive sanctions to be imposed upon finding that the lawyer has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. This rule relates to deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, improper communication with individuals in the legal system, and abuse of the legal process.

RPP11-0586. Presumptive sanctions for violating duties owed as a member of the legal profession. New. This new rule provides presumptive sanctions to be imposed upon finding that the lawyer has engaged in conduct involving misleading communications about a lawyer or a lawyer’s services, unreasonable or improper fees, unauthorized practice of law, failure to report professional misconduct, and failure to respond to a lawful request from disciplinary authority.

Posted: March 23, 2022

Rules of Appellate Procedure – Comment Period Closed May 7, 2022

URAP014. Review of administrative orders: how obtained; intervention. Amend

The Advisory Committee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure recommends amending Rule 14, which addresses review of administrative orders, to allow parties to file a cross-petition when a petition for review is filed by another party. The proposal responds to the Utah Court of Appeals’ observation that allowing cross-petitions in administrative appeals would further judicial efficiency. See Watson v. Lab. Comm’n, 2020 UT App 170, ¶1 n.1, 480 P.3d 353.

Posted: March 23, 2022

Rules Governing the Utah State Bar – Comment Period Closed May 7, 2022

USB14-0701. Definitions. AMEND.

In acknowledging the remote work environment created by the pandemic, amendments remove the requirement that “active practice” activities be performed in the jurisdiction in which the applicant is admitted.
Amendments also remove teaching full-time at an approved law school as an “active practice” activity in favor of creating an exception for this type of work under Rule 14-705, which is the admission by motion rule.

USB14-0705. Admission by motion. AMEND.

Amendments remove geographic restrictions for purposes of counting years of practice toward admission by motion requirements.
Amendments allow time in Utah to count toward time practicing in another jurisdiction so long as the lawyer has complied with Rule 5.5 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.
Amendments reduce the amount of time a lawyer must have practiced in another jurisdiction from 60 months to 36 months.
Amendments also exempt full-time Utah law professors from the requirement of being engaged in the active full-time practice of law for the relevant time period, so long as they have worked at least 80 hours per month as a law professor during that time.

USB14-0712. Qualifications for admission based on UBE. AMEND.

Paragraph (c)(2) currently provides that a UBE score may be transferred up to 5 years after exam administration if the attorney applicant can prove that they have practiced for at least 2 ½ years.
Repeal of paragraph (c)(2) would bring the rule in line with Rule 14-705 amendments by funneling such applicants through the admission by motion process rather than the UBE score transfer process.

USB14-0809. Practice Pending Admission. AMEND.

Amendments to paragraph (c)(3) conform to Rule 14-705 amendments regarding geographic restrictions and time spent practicing.
Amendments also expand practice eligibility:
- from one year to eighteen months after certificate issuance, and
- from one failed Bar exam attempt to two failed Bar exam attempts.

USB14-0807. Law school student and law school graduate legal assistance. AMEND.

Amendments extend law school graduate practice eligibility:
- from one year to eighteen months after graduation, and
- from one failed Bar exam attempt to two failed Bar exam attempts.
Amendments also fix a number of formatting issues, simplify language, and add headings for easier application.
New paragraph (g)(3)(G) provides that if a 14-807 practitioner substantially aids in the preparation of written materials in an appellate case, including briefs and memoranda, the supervising attorney may, at the attorney’s discretion, credit the 14-807 practitioner by including the practitioner’s name on the filing below the supervising attorney’s name.

Posted: March 23, 2022

Rules of Juvenile Procedure – Comment Period Closed – May 7, 2022

URJP017. The petition. Amends. Adds requirement for delinquency petitions regarding non-felony-level offenses to include the specific condition or conditions that allows the prosecuting attorney to file pursuant to Utah Code section 80-6-304(11).

Posted: March 16, 2022

Rules of Civil Procedure – Comment Period Closed April 30, 2022

URCP004. Process. AMEND. Based upon the regular practice with default judgments the Committee is proposing a change of the word “will” to “may” in subsection (c)(1)(E). The rule would then read that a “judgment by default may be entered against the defendant.”

URCP041. Dismissal of actions. AMEND. The issue of dismissing an action as to a particular party was brought to the Committee. The example posed included a multi-defendant case where a settlement agreement may have been reached as to some, but not all defendants, and the plaintiff sought to dismiss the action as to those particular defendants, but not all of the defendants. Rule 41 currently addresses the dismissal of an “action.” The Committee is proposing a change to subsections (a)(1)(A) and (a)(2) that would permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action “or any party or portion thereof.”

URCP042. Consolidation; separate trials; venue transfer. AMEND. A change is being proposed to (a)(3) from the word “new” to “single,” because procedurally clerks do not issue a new case number to cases that have been consolidated, rather the case is moved under one case number already in existence.

URCP043. Evidence. AMEND. Changes to the language of the remote hearing oath outlined in subsection (c) to remove the language “issue (or matter) pending between ___ and ___” to be replaced by the word “matter.” Particularly for cases in juvenile court where the caption is “State of Utah in the interest of …” the language in the oath is more encompassing if read “evidence you shall give in this matter” when administering the oath.

Posted: March 14, 2022

Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed April 28, 2022

CJA03-0407. Accounting. (AMEND). The amendments to the rule address the following items:

1. Incorporate the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee (BFMC) into Rule 3-407 as an approval body for accounting manual updates. The original version of Rule 3-407 predated the creation of the BFMC.

2. Elevate and document the role of the clerks of court as reviewers and approvers of new and amended accounting manual policies, post review by the Accounting Manual Review Committee but before the BFMC. The clerks of court are performing this role today, the proposed amendment would simply incorporate current practice into policy. This change has been endorsed by Shane Bahr and Neira Siaperas.

3. Eliminate the court services representative on the Accounting Manual Review Committee as the elevation of the review by all clerks of court will more comprehensively address any role played by the old court services area which has been integrated into IT.

Posted: March 14, 2022

Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed April 28, 2022

CJA01-0205. Standing and Ad Hoc Committees. (AMEND). Creates a Standing Committee on Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders (WINGS).

CJA03-0421. WINGS Committee. (NEW). Outlines the roles and responsibilities of the new Standing Committee on Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders (WINGS).

CJA06-0104. Water law judges. (NEW). New rule creating designated water judges in district court to handle cases involving water law and the adjudication of water rights.

Posted: March 10, 2022

Rules of Appellate Procedure – Comment Period Closed April 24, 2022

URAP004. Appeal as of right: when taken. Amend. The proposed amendments to Rule 4, subsection (f), addressing reinstating the right to appeal in criminal cases; are to (1) add that a motion to reinstate must be filed within one year from discovery of facts giving rise to the claim; (2) include the standard governing such motions; (3) restructure the section to be consistent with subsection 4(g) (addressing reinstating the right to appeal in civil cases); (4) and clean up language for clarity and consistency.

URAP020. Habeas corpus proceedings. Repeal. The Utah Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure recommends repealing Rule 20 because it is superfluous and confusing, and could prejudice a criminal defendant’s opportunity to seek relief under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA). Rules 65B and 65C of the civil rules, together with the PCRA, Utah Code § 78B-9-101 to -110, already provide mechanisms to challenge the lawfulness of any official detention.