Utah has been a leader in the growing movement across the United States to deregulate law firm ownership rules. At our Legal Business Strategy conference at Legalweek NY next month, we will spend some time digging into what these changes mean for law firms, clients, law companies, the general public and more. In this Q&A, we check in with Utah Supreme Court Justice Deno Himonas on what he and others have been doing in Utah and what deregulation means to him.

The American Lawyer: Can you share with us the latest updates on the changes to attorney ethics rules in Utah regarding loosening restrictions on nonlawyer involvement in the practice of law?

Justice Himonas: In August of 2019, the Utah Supreme Court adopted the recommendations of a joint Utah Supreme Court and Utah State Bar task force to (A) pursue changes to ethical restrictions on outside ownership, fee sharing and advertising and solicitation and (b) establish a legal sandbox to test innovative structures and mechanisms for the practice of law. The Supreme Court subsequently formed a new task force to pursue and implement these recommendations. That task force has been moving apace.

TAL: What was the motivation behind making these changes and why do you think Utah was a leader in this space?

JH: The motivation is straight-forward: there is an access-to-justice crisis in the United States and something has to be done about it. Past efforts to address the crisis (e.g., volunteerism) have not made a dent; indeed, the crisis has worsened. In response, in Utah we have made a sustained and concerted effort to create a new legal ecosystem in an effort to try and really address the problem. To this end, and among other efforts, we have recently licensed paralegals to independently practice law in the areas of family, landlord/tenant, and debt collection law; built and piloted an online dispute resolution system for small claims courts; and, most recently, undertaken regulatory reform.

TAL: Who will be impacted by these changes?

JH: It is our genuine hope and belief that everyone, including lawyers, will benefit from these innovations.

TAL: Have you or others involved in these changes experienced any pushback, and, if so, by whom?

JH: Of course, change frightens us all. 

TAL: Do you think more jurisdictions should be exploring the idea of loosening regulations on who can be involved in the practice and business of law?

JH: Absolutely! But more broadly, I would encourage the relevant bodies in each state to undertake an examination of the access-to-justice crises and to offer up potential responses. Perhaps these responses will include loosening regulations, perhaps they will focus on technology, perhaps they will offer approaches that we have yet to think about and discuss.

TAL: In thinking of your session at the Legal Business Strategy conference what would be the key message you'd want to ensure those interested in this subject understand?

JH: The current state of affairs is not sustainable and threatens our core value of being governed by the rule of law. We have to come together and offer the public a more accessible and affordable system of justice. 

For more on this topic, sign up to attend Legal Business Strategy. The session on this topic takes place Feb. 4 from 2-3pm EST. Other speakers include moderator Ralph Baxter and panelists, Andrew Arruda of ROSS and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System; Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer of the Arizona Supreme Court; and Professor Rebecca Sandefur of Arizona State University, along with Justice Himonas.

This session will examine how the latest efforts around deregulation are different than ones in the past. Who stands to benefit and who will face increased competition? What type of investments are we expecting? Where will this spread next?