H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments

What this bill does

The bill sets a process for removing non-lawyers who enter court appearances for others, and lets the Bar seek injunctions against unauthorized practice of law. It also adds criminal penalties, a statute of limitations, and a new lawsuit option letting injured people, the Attorney General, or the Bar seek damages and attorney's fees.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the sponsor’s presentation in committee and on the floor. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 7 yes, 0 no, 4 absentHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to change the bill · Jan 28, 2026Who voted how
• 7 yes, 0 no, 4 absentHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 28, 2026Who voted how
• 62 yes, 4 no, 9 absentFinal House vote · Feb 6, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Business and Labor Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Business and Labor Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 25 yes, 2 no, 2 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how
• 71 yes, 1 no, 3 absentHouse vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Jan 28, 2026 House Judiciary Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (35 turns)

  1. Committee chair2:07:54

     which is Representative Loubet HB two 60 unauthorized practice of law amendments. Looks like you're going to go down and present from the desk. Please proceed.

  2. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:08:22

     All right. Thank you Madam Chair. Uh, my presentation was gonna be an hour, but I know we're gonna get kind of pressed for time, so I'll just cut it back to 55 minutes, if that's okay with Madame Chair. I will be setting a timer for two minutes. Well, my name is, uh, representative Anthony Lube. Um, I am presenting on the first sub to house Bill two 60 that came out earlier today. So in case of you, some of you were looking at an older version, there's a newer one online. Um, with me is Mary Beth Lihue, and I'll have her do more thorough introduction just a minute. Um, but where this came, uh, this bill came from is that, uh, I know another non, non shocker. I'm an attorney. And so, um, I represent clients in court in various, uh, civil capacities. And one of the things that has been, uh, occurring a bit more is that I've been noticing that individuals that are not barred are entering appearances to represent, uh, individuals in cases. Now, eventually, uh, there's a method for me to try to like, uh, remove this person, but it's not anything that's written in rule or in law. And so, um, and talking to other attorneys about the situation, it, it, they also have a hard time under knowing how to best address that situation. Um, and talking to judges, they also are not sure exactly what the proper way is to handle these situations. Uh, I was talking with another attorney who sits on the uniform, uh, I'm sorry, the unauthorized practice of law committee, and he was expressing some of the, um, uh, the challenges that they face. Um, and so I'll turn the time over to Marybeth and she can speak a little bit more to that. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and representatives. Thank you so much for this opportunity. My name is Mary Beth Lihue and I'm an attorney and I have been on the unauthorized practice of law committee for almost 10 years, which is a long time. Um, I would first like to thank Representative Loubet for his work and his collaboration on this. And he's been a wonderful partner and thoughtful leader. The UPL committee fulfills an important obligation, which is protecting the public. And while the Office of Professional Conduct helps protect the public from bad lawyers, the UPL committee fills a gap in protecting people from bad non-lawyers who are nonetheless practicing law. While some cases can be solved with a sternly worded letter, such as an individual I once had who was calling a pet shop, pretending to be a lawyer because he was mad about his turtle that had passed away. Some cases are not so simple. We have had many cases in the immigration realm where individuals either claim to be attorneys or at least that they can do legal work. These folks are often woefully unqualified and that does not stop them from taking, taking clients' Money cases have led to missed hearings, late filings and orders of removal that have not, that would not otherwise occurred. The other area we see this a lot is trust in estates where individuals build businesses writing wills and trusts. And sometimes these clients discover these issues if they go to an actual attorney, like a recent complaint we received about trust documentation that was incorrect and improperly notarized and would therefore not have held up in court. But often people are unaware of the deficiencies. As Representative Abbott noted, these documents don't come into play until someone has passed away and their loved ones are left to deal with a mess that's been left behind. I have for years referred, jokingly referred to the UPL committee as a strongly worded letter committee. Committee. We are a volunteer group of lawyers who receive complaints and investigate them from the public. However, we are limited in what we can do. The current statute allows us to request permission from the bar commission to file a civil action and obtain, obtain an injunction. However, that, um, that, that cost resources basically leaves us in the same place an order telling the person they're not allowed to do something they already shouldn't have been doing. If they violate the injunction, we can go back and seek penalties for that, but it requires we wait until someone from the public files another complaint. The proposed bill would still allow the committee to handle people calling pet shops or other minor matters, but would allow real penalties for those who continue to prey on the public. Or in the case that was Representative Loubet mentioned, clog up the court system when filing things when they shouldn't be doing so most importantly, it allows for a remedy to get people back the money of members of the public who have been harmed. Thank you and we appreciate you hearing this matter today. Thank you. Um, so the bill that's before you, um, addresses a few different things. This bill was drafted, uh, in collaboration, in coordination with a variety of stakeholders, including members of the unauthorized practice of law committee, um, associated with the bar. Um, what it tries to do is that in situations where, um, uh, parties to a case have somebody, uh, that's a non-lawyer participate in an action, it gives, uh, procedures on how to have that person removed and what remedies are available to the, uh, party that's not in violation of practice of law. Um, we also go in and, uh, further define what the board of of the bar can actually do. So it's clear what their remedies are. Um, we go into what the standard is for an injunction in this type of situation. We also go into criminal penalties for those that are in violation. And we also provide a, a right, a private right of action. So for somebody who is injured, uh, they have their own ability to ha to seek recourse. Um, and with that, that concludes my presentation and I'm open to any questions.

  3. Committee chair2:13:54

     Alright, thank you representative. We'll come back to the committee for any clarifying questions or discussion. Seeing no lights, we'll move to the public for comment. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this bill? I see one hand or any online? Two hands here. Two hands online. Alright. Uh, if we could ask you to maybe just sit back in those really comfortable seats and welcome to the committee. You'll have a minute 30 to speak. Thank you for being here, and please proceed.

  4. Seth Stewart2:14:31

     Thank you. Uh, my name is Seth Stewart. Um, just representing myself, uh, the practice of law is something that is not, uh, constitutionally prohibited to the people. It is a constitutional guarantee that the people have the right to seek the assistance of counsel. And there is no constitutional dispensation for narrowing or limiting what that council shall or shall not consist of. And correspondingly, uh, we have a dilemma on our hands where courts have traditionally irrigated to themselves the exclusive power to decide who can and cannot plead in someone's, uh, defense. And that creates a very serious conflict of interest that is not assuaged by having a right of action, which will again be litigated and decided by people who are a member of that exact same, uh, secret combination. And a, for, from a citizen's perspective, we need to understand that a lawyer who holds himself or just anybody who holds himself to the confines of constitutionally enumerated powers, is an infinitely better lawyer than someone who has all the learning in the world, but does not adhere to those limitations. And so respectfully, I request that we withdraw this bill. Thank you.

  5. Committee chair2:15:59

     Thank you. Please proceed.

  6. Craig Peterson, Director, Utah Attorney General's Office2:16:02

     Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Craig Peterson. I am the director of the Justice Division in the Utah Attorney General's office. And so I learned about this bill a couple of weeks ago. I was asked to speak on it today. Uh, sub eight of this bill is the piece that I'm particularly focused on, and that's the criminal penalty. So if somebody represents themselves to be, say, a nurse practitioner or a physician's assistant or some other medical, a registered nurse, it's a status offense called unlawful conduct. It's a third degree felony. Um, and you can just charge them for that despite whatever other conduct they may have done. In our case, we had a parolee. The parolee, uh, was on an interstate compact outside of the state of Utah in Iowa, and he stole the identification of two retired attorneys. He then used, uh, that information to gain access to their bar numbers, and he began to represent other inmates in the system pertaining to be those attorneys. Uh, eventually, uh, we found this out. We actually called the court one day. My investigator was on the phone with the judge's clerk, and the clerk said he's about to take the bench. And my investigator said he really wants to talk to me first. Uh, eventually we were able to shut this down, but all we had when we looked at it, if I could, if the court, if, uh, madam, if I could be indulge for about a minute longer, Uh, we would like to keep to time, but if you could just wrap up your call, I can. And so we support this because we didn't have a status offense. We were able to charge identity fraud. We were able to charge forgery for the documents he filed with the court, but we didn't have an offense per se on this. This would allow us that this gives us what we need to be able to prosecute these offenses and we're in support of it.

  7. Committee chair2:17:52

     Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you for being here. Okay, we're gonna go to our two online commenters first. Oh. Could you please sit back down? There's a question for you sitting, you're getting your exercise today. I need it. Me too. All right, representative Voxer.

  8. Unknown speaker2:18:10speaker not certain

     Thank you. So, um, you're saying that the offense or the penalty for practicing without a law will now be the same as practicing without a license of other? Um,

  9. Craig Peterson, Director, Utah Attorney General's Office2:18:21

     Well, in this, it's actually one degree lower. It's a class A misdemeanor, unless it's a a second offense. Um, we think that's appropriate, uh, under the statutory schemes and other statutory schemes. I think the only addition I'd personally want to add is if there were three or more victims, maybe make it a felony at that point to begin with. But I think the way it's structured to keep it at a misdemeanor level for the that initial, uh, act is appropriate.

  10. Unknown speaker2:18:45speaker not certain

      Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

  11. Craig Peterson, Director, Utah Attorney General's Office2:18:50speaker not certain

      That's it. You can, thank you. Madam Chair. Yes.

  12. Committee chair2:18:53

      Thank you for being here. Alright, we will come, we will go to the online commenters commenters. First we'll have Kara North. Please proceed.

  13. Kara North, Utah Association for Justice2:19:14

      Thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee. Um, I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on this topic. Um, my name is Kara North as stated, and I'm here on behalf of the Utah Association for Justice. The UAJ supports HB two 60 because it provides clear definitions of the unauthorized practice of law, strengthens the court's abilities to respond when it occurs and creates meaningful civil and criminal remedies to the public. This bill closes enforcement gaps and helps ensure that utahns receive legal services from only qualified and accountable providers. Ultimately, HB two 60 provides important consumer protections, judicial efficiency, and the integrity of our, of our legal system. And we respectfully urge this committee to render a favorable decision to move it forward. Thank you.

  14. Committee chair2:19:57

      Thank you, Kara. Alright, we'll move next to Nancy Sylvester. Nancy, there you are.

  15. Nancy Sylvester, former general counsel, Utah State Bar2:20:22

      Thank you very much. Madam Chair, can you hear me? Yes,

  16. Committee chair2:20:26

      Please Proceed. Okay.

  17. Nancy Sylvester, former general counsel, Utah State Bar2:20:27

      Thank you so much. Um, so I'm appearing, um, as former general counsel for the Utah State Bar. And in connection with that role, I had the same role that, uh, Mary Beth Lihue now has. And I actually served on the unauthorized practice of law committee with her and others who've been involved in this bill. Um, I strongly support it because we saw firsthand the, um, damage that occurred from people practicing without a law license. Lawyers are trained in, um, how, in how to protect people from, um, well, a variety of circumstances, but, um, in particular how to navigate the court system and to act as their advocates. When you have non-trained people engaging in this activity, um, oftentimes they're, um, they know they're knowingly victimizing people. And especially in, for example, the Spanish speaking community, we saw a lot of people taking advantage of those who just simply didn't know better. And so I'm offering my comment and support and, and thank you very much for allowing me to, um, present here. And also thank you to our sponsor for bringing this forward.

  18. Committee chair2:21:22

      Thank you. All right. And we did actually have one more hand raised online. So we'll go to Brady Whitehead.

  19. Brady Whitehead, former paralegal, Utah State Bar2:21:39

      Hello. I'm not sure if you can hear me, but, uh, I can hear you. Uh, okay, great. Uh, my name is Brady Whitehead. Um, I'm appearing to you today as a former paralegal for the Utah State Bar. I processed all of the unauthorized practice of law com complaints for eight years. And in that time we saw a lot of individuals who were repeat offenders, um, and not a whole lot that we could do for those individuals or for the individuals who were were victimized. Uh, we saw everything from, uh, people losing their, their residential status and being deported to other individuals, losing their homes, uh, places to live because they essentially didn't know what they were doing. Um, and they put their trust in, in a wrong individual. Um, I think that this bill is very important in moving things in the right direction so that if someone does hold themselves out as an attorney, um, there are consequences for those actions. Um, and we don't see people continuing to do it for 20 and 30 years, which is what we have been seeing. Thank you.

  20. Committee chair2:22:51

      Thank you. Thank you for being here with us today. Alright, that will conclude our public comment portion. We'll come back to the committee for potential action or further discussion. Representative Hawkins?

  21. Rep. Jon Hawkins2:23:17

      Um, yeah. Is there a sub that we need to adopt on this First? Uh,

  22. Committee chair2:23:20

      yes. First sub.

  23. Rep. Jon Hawkins2:23:22

      So I, I move that we adopt first sub.

  24. Committee chair2:23:24

      Oh, right. The motion is to adopt the first substitute for House Bill two 60. Would you like to speak to that? No. Okay. To the sponsor,

  25. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:23:34

      I waive.

  26. Committee chair2:23:35

      Okay. Any discussion to the motion? Seeing none. Back to the sponsor I waive and to the maker of the motion I waive. Alright. All those in favor of adopting the first sub, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously.

  27. Committee chair2:23:51

      Representative Hawkins?

  28. Rep. Jon Hawkins2:23:52

      Yeah. Now that we've adopted the first sub, I'd like to make a motion that we favorably recommend, um, the, uh, HB two first sub HB two 60.

  29. Committee chair2:24:03

      Okay. The motion is to favorably recommend the first substitute of HB two 60. Would you like to speak to that motion?

  30. Rep. Jon Hawkins2:24:11

      Uh, no. I was gonna say something snarky, but I'll, I'll, I'll refrain.

  31. Committee chair2:24:16

      Okay. Well we did have a fairly heavy committee hearing prior to this, so a little levity might be welcome. Yeah, true. Thank You. Okay. To the sponsor.

  32. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:24:26

      Um, I appreciate, uh, the motion and uh, obviously I support it.

  33. Committee chair2:24:30

      Alright. Discussion to the motion. Seeing no lights back to the sponsor. Alright, I waive and maker of the motion.

  34. Rep. Jon Hawkins2:24:38

      Maybe I'll say something. S snarky. I think, you know, if, if I can't practice law as a non-lawyer, then no one else should be able to, so it is good Bill.

  35. Committee chair2:24:48

      Okay. Thank you. Alright, we'll take a roll call. Vote. Alright. Representative Abbott? Yes. Acton? Yes. Ox here? Yes. Hawkins? Yes. Lube? Yes. Clancy? Yes. Libe? Yes. All right. That passes unanimously. Thank you representative. We have fun.

• Feb 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (23 turns)

  1. Presiding officer2:21

     Third reading calendar Per substitute house Bill two 60, unauthorized practice of Law Amendments by Representative Loubet. This bill was heard in judiciary with a vote of 7 0 4 Representative Loubet.

  2. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet2:35

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill came by way, as many of you know, I am an attorney by profession and, uh, I do, uh, a good deal of lawsuits in, uh, the district court. And I started noticing something with a growing frequency of individuals that are not attorneys that are entering appearances as an attorney and, uh, trying to represent the defendant in a case. And, uh, as part of this process, some people might think that that sounds like it's a great idea, except the people that are, are trying to make an appearance don't really understand the law and there are documents that are being filed that are actually hurting their clients. And so, um, the way that the current statute's set up, it's not, or the, yeah, the current statute is set up. It's not super clear what the process is to have that person removed from the case or what are the remedies that are available to them. Uh, I had a conversation with the, uh, Utah State Bar and the Utah State Bar by statute and by, uh, declaration of the Supreme Court is the enforcer of the, uh, of the unlawful practice of law. And they were expressing the concerns that the way that the statute's currently set up, uh, does allow them to enforce, but it's not very clear in other states, they, uh, remedies the process are, is enumerated in Utah code it is not as clear. And so in working with the bar and the courts, we were able to put together something cleaner. Um, we also then talked to the ags office and we're able to address some of the concerns that they had as well. So what this bill does is it sets up and addresses four different issues. One, it talks about in the situation in which you have an attorney or you have an individual trying to hold themselves at an attorney and they're making an appearance in a lawsuit, it gives the remedies for the party, um, that is trying to remove the person that came in that was, is now unlawfully practicing law. Um, and so it makes it easier process, so you know how to get this person outta your case and gives your attorney's fees back so that way your clients put back to the same place that they were before that individual got involved in the lawsuit. Uh, the second thing that it does is it clarifies what remedies and process the bar goes through now, uh, in a cleaner way that makes it easier for them to be able to have consistency. Um, third, it provides criminal provisions that are consistent and similar to what it's like in other states that are surrounding us. And then the fourth is it also gives a private right of action. So if somebody is injured because of somebody who's holding themself out an attorney and they suffered monetary or physical or any sort of type of damages, now they'll be able to sue and get those, um, to seek, uh, compensation. Uh, some examples, there's been attorneys down in, there's an example where the bar has been having issues with some attorneys in Utah County where the, there's an individual that's not an attorney, says he's an attorney, is preparing trust and wills for people. And as a result of that, uh, they're, when those individuals go take these documents to attorneys, they realize that they weren't either properly executed so they wouldn't be enforceable or they never actually were created. And so if the those individuals had died, there wouldn't be anything there that they could do. And so, uh, this is Bill is supposed to help be able to give some something to these individuals where they can kind of be able to seek their own redress if needed. And with that, I open myself up to any questions. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.

  3. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)6:07

     Thank you Representative Loubet discussion to the bill Representative Shelley.

  4. Rep. Troy Shelley6:16

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Prom. Will the, uh, sponsor yield to a question?

  5. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)6:20

     Will the sponsor yield? Yes, go ahead.

  6. Rep. Troy Shelley6:23

     Does, does this bill, uh, apply specifically as it written to prevent a person from a appearing in court and representing themselves as an attorney, when in fact they're not? Uh, is it, are is the question? Uh, can you repeat the question? Yeah. Is this, is this bill presented so that if a person shows up in court in front of a judge and represents them as an attorney, and in fact they're not an attorney licensed to practice law, that there's ramifications for that This bill does apply in that situation, but it's not exclusively in that situation. Additional comment, My concern with this bill is on, uh, line 63 and line 75, it specifically states that if, if an individual were to offer legal counsel in any way to another individual, then that individual can be sued. Um, and the the person suing them is the attorney. And the attorney is, uh, or not the attorney, but the prevailing party is entitled to recover all of its attorney's fees. So I don't know if attorneys ever fight each other, but I know that if I am in a lawsuit against an attorney, I lose because the attorney has unlimited resources and I'm limited to however much I can pay my attorney to fight it. And, and this would, this would be a situation where, um, like many times I, I'll go into a business and talk to a business and say, well, what do your operating agreements look like? What does your organizing documents look like? How are you organized? That is considered legal advice. And I can be sued, I should be able to pull up on, on Grok or AI and say, here is what the law says. I'm not saying I'm an attorney, I'm just saying, look, this is what the law says and what this bill does. And, and, and you may agree that this may already be the law, but what this bill does is it strengthens it and it'll, it provides, uh, penalties and recourse against me simply offering to them that they ought to get their business structured correctly. I'm not saying that I'm their attorney, but I'm saying, look, you, you, you have some issues because you don't even have an operating agreement to work with. So, so to the sponsor, could you, could you maybe clarify that for me?

  7. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)9:16

     Go ahead. Uh, just wondering if the sponsor can clarify That. Wanna ask another question? Yes. Representative, will you yield? Yes. I'll yield's another question. Go Ahead.

  8. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet9:26

     Um, oh, now I answer. Okay. That'd be a great time. Okay, so line 63 through 65 of the bill, if you were looking at it, what he's referencing or the good, uh, sponsor from Southern Utah, Southern Sanpete County. That's the Middle Sanpete County. Okay. Middle, middle-ish, Utah. Um, the board may bring a civil action against a person for GA in the authorized practice of law. If the board prevails in the civil action described in subsection four A, the court may, and one of the remedies is attorney's fees. This isn't a guarantee. This is something that the board, which would be the bar, the unlawful practice of law committee, if they decide that if an individual is not stopping. 'cause usually the first thing that they do is a letter that says, Hey, you've been, we've heard that you are trying to practice law where you're holding yourself out, that you're practicing law, please stop. And if that doesn't work, then yes, there will be a lawsuit filed against the individual to get an injunction to prevent them. Um, and in those situations, the court may award attorney's fees if they think that it's, it's right. To your other point about, um, consulting. So there's a, a, a very big difference between consulting when you're talking about business purposes. So if I'm talking about the operations of a company that's not legal, and there's maybe legal elements, but it's not legal advice when you're talking about that specifically. Now, if you were talking about their operating agreement, you look at it and you're like, Hey, there's some problems here. You should go get legal representation. Once again, that does not rise. Now, once you start applying it to their specific situation, and this is, uh, this is as defined by the Utah Supreme Court, that if you start applying legal to their specific facts, then you are acting as legal representation and you are acting as a lawyer and you're not legally qualified to do that. And the concern is when you reference Rock and Chat GBT or any of those sources, yes. I mean, if you are losing them, they have been known to hallucinate. So you are giving good, you, you think in good faith, you're giving good legal advice, you could be harming those individuals. Now, who's gonna be responsible when something hits the fan, hopefully, that if you're giving, if you are confident that that's legal advice, you should be willing to take responsibility for that. So this bill, well, yes, it's true. It is strengthening the, the process and making it cleaner, but it's already currently illegal under current law and it just adds clarification so that way it makes enforceability more consistent.

  9. Rep. Troy Shelley11:51

     Mr. Speaker Prote a follow up question. Go Ahead.

  10. Rep. Troy Shelley11:55

      So, so what this does is it does actually add penalties for doing that. If the ever trusted Supreme Court decides that, that you're out of line, then it does open it up for a lawsuit, even though if you search on, on a, uh, on the internet and say, what is, what is the legal precedence and it gives you a code to look at. Um, I I'm just saying, I don't know that a small business needs to hire an attorney for every piece that they do, and if they don't hire an attorney, then the person who's trying to help them move forward is, is going to get sued. And not even necessarily by the business, but by an attorney who found out that you offered them legal advice. Is that correct?

  11. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet12:44

      No, That would be how the bill reads.

  12. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)12:49

      Uh, I believe if he asked you a question, go ahead. Okay. I,

  13. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet12:54

      I'll respond. So, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, uh, no. The bill does not give a private right of action to any attorney to sue an individual. The only person who's able to bring a lawsuit under this bill is either the person who is injured, the ags office or the bar. That's it.

  14. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)13:13

      Thank you. Thank you Representative Shelley. Further discussion to Bill Representative Shipp head representative.

  15. Rep. Rex P. Shipp13:29

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker Prote with the sponsor yield to a question. Lube, will you yield to a question? Yes, go ahead. Uh, does this prevent somebody from representing themself in the court?

  16. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet13:41

      No. Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro. Tim,

  17. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)13:45

      Thank you. Further discussion to the bill, Representative Ivory.

  18. Rep. Ken Ivory13:50

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker Proti. My rising support of this bill, uh, to our good friend from Sam, Pete, uh, where I was born. And, uh, love considerably. This does not prevent someone from doing their best to navigate the legal system. What it does do is when someone holds themself out as being able to and being authorized to give legal advice, they hold themselves out as if they were an attorney seeking to represent someone in court, intervening for someone as if they were an attorney. And holding someone self out as an attorney is a term of art that the courts have developed. And so if our good friend from Sam Petee is putting out his shingle and charging money for the friendly advice that he gives, that may cross the line, but if he's chatting with a friend about what a best course of action does, that's very far on the other side of the spectrum. And so attorneys are act as fiduciaries and know sometimes that doesn't seem to play out, but that means they're held to utmost good faith and loyalty in upholding the law. If they don't vulnerable, people are often exploited by not doing this. People that maybe have marginal English skills, uh, new people to the country, get exploited by people that do often hold themselves out as being able to practice law, give legal advice. And so, uh, I think this is a good measure to clarify what that means and mechanisms for being able to enforce that I speak in support of the bill. Thank you.

  19. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)15:38

      Thank you, Representative Ivory. Further discussion to the bill. Representative Dominguez

  20. Rep. Rosalba Dominguez15:44

      Call. The question, Previous question has been called, has the effect of ending debate.

  21. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)15:50

      All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries Representative Loubet for summation.

  22. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet15:57

      Yeah, uh, I wanted to, uh, I'd like to thank the sponsors and those that, uh, uh, well, like not sponsor. I'd like to thank those that, uh, asked questions. Um, I really appreciated, um, the dialogue and I think it was really important to be able to bring out the fact that in this situation, um, we're not looking at trying to punish anybody who is trying to act in good faith. Um, we're not looking at, uh, look, uh, individuals that are consultants trying to work with businesses. What we're looking at really trying to do is find those individuals that are out there trying to perform legal services, that are trying to, uh, collect money for it, that are holding themselves out as attorneys or that are providing legal services, uh, advice as, as facts. So that way an individual relies on it to their detriment. And so this law, once again, does not change the definition of practice of law. It does not change, uh, that it's already illegal to do that. Um, what it does do is it sets a standard so that there's consistency of how these cases get resolved. Currently, lawsuits can already be filed, but it's uncertain amongst the judges what remedies they would employ or what their options are. And so this is to add clarification for that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pro tem.

  23. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)17:11

      Thank you. Representative Loubet voting is open on first substitute house bill two 60 unauthorized practice of law amendments. Representative Fife all present having voted voting will be closed First substitute house bill two 60, having received 62 yay votes and four nay votes passes, the house will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration.

• Feb 25, 2026 Senate Business and Labor Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (44 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:27:12

     Okay, let's go to house Bill two 60 for substitute unauthorized practice of law amendments. Representative Loubet, I see that you have a sub online. Will you be discussing that or,

  2. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:27:30

     Yes, I will. Mr. Chair.

  3. Committee chair1:27:31

     Okay. Go ahead and just present, you know, based on the sub and then, uh, we can consider action on it.

  4. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:27:38

     Okay, great. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, this bill, the unauthorized practice of law amendments, uh, came about because, uh, as an attorney I handle various lawsuits for clients. And in a few of my cases, I started noticing a trend where individuals that were not attorneys were trying to, uh, represent somebody. And the filings that they were putting in the court were not supported in law. Uh, they did not, uh, comport with court procedure and, uh, requested the court to take action on things that not only, uh, drove up the cost for my clients, but they were also causing issues for the court themselves, um, trying to have to spend time responding, uh, to this non-attorney. And what I noticed is that when I made certain requests to have the motion, uh, struck, have an injunction granted one judge, uh, granted it, another one didn't think they had the authority to grant it, and that it had to come from a motion, uh, through the bar. And so, uh, that had me looking at what our statute was, and our statute wasn't super clear in these type of situations. And so what this bill does is to try to clarify what uh, happens. So the first part it does is identifies in a lawsuit what a party can do or the court can do to have that individual removed from the case that's not, uh, not authorized to practice law. It then also, uh, talks about what, uh, a private right of action for that individual that if anybody is injured, not necessarily in a case, but, uh, somebody's holding themselves out to be, uh, able to practice law that there's, uh, an ability to, to sue and recover damages. Uh, the other one, it talks about what the, the bar can do. Um, it makes it clear what the remedies are that they can seek. It also establishes some criminal penalties. And, uh, during public comment, we have somebody from the ags office that will speak a little bit more to that. And then it also talks about what about a statute of limitations, because under the, uh, current law, it really doesn't identify how long, uh, a person can be tried for something. So this bill is to try to add clar clarity, uh, and structure, so it's easier to enforce. Um, and there's some predictability there. Um, with me is, uh, Marybeth Lihue, uh, she has a lot of experience in this, and she's gonna talk a little bit more about, uh, the background on this bill.

  5. Maribeth LeHoux, General Counsel, Utah State Bar1:29:57

     Sure. Thank you. Um, thank you for, uh, allowing me to speak on this. My name's Mary Beth Lihue and I've been, uh, involved with the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee for about 10 years now. Um, the committee fulfills an important obligation, which is protecting the public. And while the Office of Professional Conduct helps pro, uh, protect the public from bad lawyers, the committee fills the gap of protecting people from bad non-lawyers who are nonetheless practicing law. We've had many case cases in the immigration realm where individuals claim to be attorneys or that they can do legal work. These folks are often woefully unqualified, but that that doesn't stop them from taking clients'. Money. Cases like this have led to missed hearings, late filings and orders of removal that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. We also see this a lot in trusts in estates where individuals build businesses writing wills and trusts. And some of these clients only realize there's an issue when they go to an actual attorney. And had they not, there wouldn't have, wouldn't have been discovered until someone had passed away and they would've found that the trust wasn't even properly created. Um, we've seen individuals of flat out lying and using other people's bar numbers to practice law. And like Representative Loubet said, we've seen instances of people filing documents in the court not for themselves. Obviously people can represent themselves per se, but people filing documents for others, which can clog up the litigation process as attorneys and judges are forced to sort through improper documents that shouldn't have been filed in the first place. We often jokingly refer to the UPL committee as a strongly worded letter committee. It's a group of volunteer lawyers who receive and investigate complaints from the public. However, we are limited in what we can do. The current statutes allows us to request permission from the bar commiss bar commission to file a civil action and obtain an injunction. However, that just costs resources and leaves us basically in the same place an order that someone can't do something they were already not allowed to do. The bill allows us to get penalties for people who are damaging the public clogging up the court system. And, uh, like Representative Loubet said, we've had instances where the ags office told us we, we would like to have something like this to, to take further action. Um, so the other thing that's very important is that it allows for remedies to get money back to the members of the public who were hurt. I think that's the most important part when people are, you know, scammed to get this discouragement to get their money back when they've been harmed by these people who have held themself out to do this sort of work that they weren't qualified to do.

  6. Committee chair1:32:21

     Okay, thank you. Does that conclude your presentation?

  7. Maribeth LeHoux, General Counsel, Utah State Bar1:32:24speaker not certain

     It does. Okay.

  8. Committee chair1:32:25

     We'll come back to the committee for further clarifying questions. Seeing none, is there anyone in the public that'd like to testify on this bill? One, do we have any on the line? Okay. Yeah, please come up, uh, identify yourself, who you represent, uh, and give us your brief testimony please.

  9. Craig Peterson, Director, Justice Division, Office of the Utah Attorney General1:32:48

     My name is Craig Peterson. I'm the director of the Justice Division within the criminal department of the Utah Attorney General's office. And, uh, we have prosecuted these types of cases. Uh, where we focus on this particular, on what we like about it so much is it creates a status offense. So if you, up this very moment, if you were to pretend to be a nurse, a nurse practitioner, a physician's assistant, you could be charged with unlawful conduct because you are doing something, you are not, you're holding yourself out to be something you are not. And I don't have to establish anything other than you are pretending to be a, a doctor, a nurse, a physician's assistant. So in our case, we had a gentleman who stole the ID of two retired attorneys. Uh, he then reactivated their bar licenses, uh, and then he began to practice law representing various defendants, uh, in the criminal court. Uh, when we discovered that, my investigator quite literally was on the phone with the court clerk saying, you know, the judge really needs to talk to me before he takes this next case. And when we got to it to screen it, uh, what we had was, is we had the two identity frauds. Uh, but then what else did we have? Uh, we couldn't charge a com fraud, uh, because we didn't have an exchange of anything of value. Uh, we had difficulty in some of the other charges because the victims in that case, who would've been the clients were other defendants in the system who knew he wasn't really an attorney. So he didn't have any inter, they didn't have any interest in, in a case being brought against him. And ultimately, what we charged was a whole slew of forgeries, um, uh, for uttering false documents to the court in the name of other people, uh, namely the two attorneys that he's, that he stole the identity from. What we like about this is it creates a status offense that we can use in a case like this where we could charge an A and if someone then engages in it again, we could charge a third. We don't think it's overcharging. We think it starts as a misdemeanor level. That is a good place to begin. And we are fully supportive of this bill. Uh, we think it resolves a lot of problems and, and gives us something with which to attack the problem. So the Office of the Attorney General, uh, urges you to, uh, v vote in support of this bill.

  10. Committee chair1:35:03

      Thank you. Okay. We have two people on the line. Uh, first is Nancy Sylvester. Nancy, if you can turn your camera on. Thanks. Indicate who you are, who you represent, and where you live. Uh, Senator McKay, did you have a question for the, for the, lemme go to Senator McKay. First

  11. Sen. Daniel McCay1:35:33

      I did for the gentleman, the Attorney General's office.

  12. Committee chair1:35:35

      Real quickly before you step away real quick. Yes.

  13. Sen. Daniel McCay1:35:38

      Um, so, uh, under this, under this scenario, um, do you know, maybe we can, we're dealing with what happens when somebody is unauthorized practice of law and we're creating, uh, that part of it. Are there remedies in here for claimants who have been told that they're the person representing them, or, you know, saying that they're practicing law? What, what remedies are in this for those who've been defrauded, so to speak?

  14. Craig Peterson, Director, Justice Division, Office of the Utah Attorney General1:36:12

      So on the, on the criminal side, what we would be looking at as restitution, if there's any, been any fees paid, if there's been any damages incurred, and I literally mean monetary damages incurred, we could seek on the prosecutorial and, um, restitution within the, within the case. I, I think for us, the, the biggest thing is to stop the perpetration of the fraud upon the court, but for the individual victims themselves that have hired this person to represent them, and it would, it would allow us to seek criminally restitution. And, and in my world, that is a non-bank corruptible, um, dollar amount. In other words, they can then go seek bankruptcy to get out from underneath the restitution that was ordered.

  15. Sen. Daniel McCay1:36:56

      Right. Are there civil penalties that attach as well after the criminal proceeding, after the criminal part of it is completed, or at the same time? I, you know, it doesn't matter. I'm just wondering if there's a, if there's a civil component to this as well.

  16. Craig Peterson, Director, Justice Division, Office of the Utah Attorney General1:37:09

      There is, and I would defer, um, to the representative on that.

  17. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:37:13

      Okay. Because the, the first part of this bill is primarily civil. It's really sub eight that creates the, the criminal portion of it. Um, and as I read it, yes.

  18. Sen. Daniel McCay1:37:23

      Okay. That's what I needed. Thank you.

  19. Committee chair1:37:25

      Thank you. Nancy, go ahead. He might be on mute. We're not hearing you.

  20. Nancy Sylvester1:37:39

      No, no. Sorry. No, we're still not hearing you.

  21. Committee chair1:37:57

      Sorry. Um, why don't you keep working on that? I'll go, I've got one more person online and then I'll come back to you. Okay. Seth Stewart, if you can turn your camera on.

  22. Committee chair1:38:09

      Yes. Thank you. You just testified, so I think you know what the, what you need to do.

  23. Seth Stewart1:38:12

      Yep. My name is Seth Stewart. I'm from American Fork and I'm representing myself. Um, I would argue this, this could very well be the worst bill in this session. Um, and I'm, I'm seeing that from a perspective of principle here. Um, I hope you'll pardon me. I'm just going to quote our state constitution, article one, section 11. It says, all courts shall be open and every person shall have remedy by due course of law. And no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this state, with or without counsel, any civil cause to which the person is a party. And then there's a criminal corollary in Article one, section 12. In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appear and defendant person and by counsel, there is no limitation on who may qualify as counsel authorized by the state constitution. The right to counsel cannot be licensed. And when you combine this with other legislation that has been proposed in this session, notably HJR 28 from earlier, uh, in this session, uh, the counsel there, that law in particular would forbid a defendant in a death penalty case from remanding petitioning to remand the case for ineffective assistance of counsel. HB two 60 creates a monopoly on the assistance of counsel making it all government licensees. And at the same time, the state is insulating itself against claims of ineffective counsel. If that isn't a conflict of interests, I don't know what is, but we have many instances where people are being

  24. Committee chair1:39:43

      Mr. Stewart, I'm gonna stop you. Um, you came really close to crossing the line of impugning, the individuals, the, the, that could sponsor and the people that worked on the bill you can testify for or against the, and by the way, I heard in, I was in another committee not too long ago where I heard you say that Bill was the worst bill of the session. So I'm not sure, uh, but I, I'm just kinda giving you some counsel. I, I, we certainly appreciate your testimony, testify to some facts for or against and, uh, but be very careful about how you do it.

  25. Committee chair1:40:22

      Absolute, absolutely. We're gonna close public comment. Senator McKay has a question for you, Seth. Be, be better, be ready. Oh, we Lost him. Okay. No, that's great.

  26. Sen. Daniel McCay1:40:33

      Uh, I appreciate you, you, you seem to weigh in. I'm wondering if you have a website that ranks them all. Um, I, I, I've been in, I've chaired a few committees now, and you've also testified that those bills are some of the worst bills. I'm, I'm, I'm getting concerned about all of them being the worst. Bill, have you spoken in favor of a bill yet this session? No. There, there are some that I've actually been supportive of various measures of. Okay. And, um, That's all I needed to hear. Do you have a website? Let us know when you get that website up, because I'd like to see your listing of top ones. Thank You Com. I'm working on it, so

  27. Committee chair1:41:04

      Thank you, Nancy. I'm gonna come back to you and we'll see.

  28. Nancy Sylvester1:41:07

      Have you got that figured out yet? I'm Gonna shout. Can you hear me? There You go. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

  29. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:41:12

      Um, and Senator Vickers and, um, thank you to the sponsor for bringing this forward.

  30. Nancy Sylvester1:41:16

      So I'm an attorney, I'm an employment attorney, but speaking on my own. Now, I do need to have you identify yourself, who you represent, if anyone, and where you live. So I represent myself, but I, I live in Syracuse, Utah. I'm coming from Salt Lake City. Um, I was for, I'm former general counsel for the Utah State Bar. So, um, Mary Beth Laou, just who spoke initially, she has a job that I used to hold. Um, I'm speaking in support of the bill because, um, as she did, I, and I worked with her on the committee that dealt with this. Uh, we constantly ran into the issue of there was simply no teeth behind this. Um, and, and kind of speaking to the negative comment we just had, there is nothing holding back people from representing themselves in court, ever. The constitution says that our courts are open, and this bill does nothing to remove that ability to represent yourself. All it does is simply say that the practice of law is complex. We don't want people committing fraud in the courts. And we want people to have competent representation that prevents harm in the communities, particularly to those who are most vulnerable, such as in landlord, tenant situations, immigration situations, estate planning situations, et cetera. So, that's my comment. Thank you for letting me weigh in on this. I appreciate it.

  31. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:42:30

      All right. Thank you for your testimony. We'll close the public comment portion of this mill and bring it back to the Committee for action or discussion. Senator McCay, you got a light on?

  32. Sen. Daniel McCay1:42:55

      Okay. I'll make the motion that we pass this out with a extra favorable recommendation.

  33. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:43:02

      That's an order. Uh, any discussion to that motion?

  34. Sen. Daniel McCay1:43:08

      I apologize. Did we need to adopt the sub or the sub has already been adopted?

  35. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:43:10

      Yes. Uh, the sub needs to be adopted.

  36. Sen. Daniel McCay1:43:12

      Can I withdraw my motion and make a motion? Yes. To adopt the sub? I was just looking at it and I I lost track of the fact that there's a sub and it needs to be adopted. So, uh, I'd like to make a motion that we delete in Title and Body House Bill two 61st substitute and replace it with second substitute house bill two 60.

  37. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:43:28

      Alright, that's an order. Any discussion to that? I place a motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chairman rules? That passes unanimously. Now, back to you for motion.

  38. Sen. Daniel McCay1:43:42

      Thank you very much. Uh, after that, we'd like to make a motion that we pass favorably, favorably, we pass favorably to the full Senate floor house Bill two 62nd substitute unauthorized practice of law amendments.

  39. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:43:56

      That's an order. Uh, any discussion to that? I'll go back to you representative to some

  40. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet1:44:04

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the motion from the good Senator. So thank you very much. Um, I, for a moment there, I was thinking that I really was the, the worst bill of the session. I was taking great joy in that, and then I found out that he's been telling that to other people. So that's, uh, a little, He didn't win after all. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, but I, I do appreciate this and I do think this will be, uh, a good way of having some enforcement, some structure to, to a growing problem. And I can my statements.

  41. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:44:32

      Thank you, Senator McCay. Do you?

  42. Unknown speaker1:44:34speaker not certain

      Yeah, I feel like, uh, it's interesting, you know, as, as you li listen to, uh, testimony from ags office and listen to the divisions, uh, you know, conversation. I mean, the idea that it's a strongly worded letter committee is not very effective as far as policing the practice of law and providing, making sure that people have quality representation. Um, I've seen many occasions where people have held themselves out with legal expertise and offer to solve legal problems for people that end up causing more problems from themselves and more problems for others, that they'd be better off had they just gone to law school. And so, uh, with that, uh, I hope that we'll pass this out favorably. Thanks.

  43. Sen. Don L. Ipson1:45:15

      Okay. I'll place the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair res. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Right.

  44. Unknown speaker1:45:26speaker not certain

      Thank you. Kanosh. Yeah, I, sorry. I as well. Thank you.

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (25 turns)

  1. Sen. Brady Brammer2:26:22

     of individuals who are not attorneys who are, uh, engaged in the practice of law by, uh, and oftentimes what happens is they're using AI to give themselves, uh, to give themselves advice. And then they, they pass that on to someone who is, who needs that legal, who needs legal advice. And so they, and, and people can do that for themselves. But once they do that for others, they are engaged in the practice of law. And that's created some problems. Uh, we've been seeing this in Utah County related to trust and will trust and wills in particular. Um, these individuals are helping draft wills that are not properly executed and so they're not enforceable. And so people think that they're protected by the law in the way that they do it, but they're not. Um, now the, currently the Utah State Bar is the enforcement body, but the statute provides no, uh, no clarification as to what the remedies are for when this happens. So the state bar, um, and really they can file a suit and the court could do anything with it, but this provides some clarity as to the options that the court would have. So what it does is, number one, it provides a remedy for those citizens who are, who are taken advantage of by these individuals holding themselves as attorneys. In these cases, it allows them to recoup their attorney's fees so they're returned to where they were before the case. And so sometimes people will charge them money for the, uh, for the non-legal advice that they claim as legal advice. And it clarifies the enforcement process for the Utah State Bar. And it institutes criminal provisions for in individuals that unlawfully practice law. It also allows for a private right of action for the citizens who file a lawsuit against the, uh, for citizens to file a lawsuit against an individual unlawfully practicing law. So just so that we're clear, this is not removing the right to self in any way, nor are we providing a means for, um, for licensed attorneys to be able to bring an action against these individuals. The only individuals who can bring the action is a citizen who was impacted, or the Utah State Bar and the Attorney General. Um, so this, this bar, uh, you know, this, this is a, a growing problem and you know, people's lives can really be upended. And, and one of the concerns, when somebody start, when somebody who is not authorized to practice law, it is a lot easier as an attorney and it's a lot cheaper as an attorney to be working against someone else who is an attorney because you both know the rules of the game. But it is much more costly and difficult when the other person doesn't know how to be an attorney, but they're acting as if they are now that that is fine in a, uh, situation where someone is self-represented, but that that process as punishment when someone is receiving legal advice from someone who is a non-attorney, can be very damaging to everyone involved in the litigation, including the person that is receiving the FOA advice. And with that, I'm open to any questions to Prove that.

  2. Senate presiding officer2:29:29

     Thank you for that presentation discussion to the bill. Senator ml, You were the sponsor. You'll do a quick question. Will You Yield? Yes. Okay.

  3. Unknown speaker2:29:37speaker not certain

     Proceed. Um, thank, thank you and Mr. President for Tim. Obviously I support this bill. I think it's a, it's serious problem and I appreciate the guidance this bill gives. Um, I I would like the bill sponsor to talk about Vexatious litigation. And while it, while it's an ancillary issue, I think it's relevant to, to the discussion, especially in light of, of the vexatious, what I view as vexatious litigation, that it continues, continues to happen. And it's not something that's new. I think it's happened for years, but if he could just address that vexatious litigation as well, I think it'd be helpful.

  4. Senate presiding officer2:30:06

     Yeah. Senator Brammer.

  5. Sen. Brady Brammer2:30:07

     So if you're not familiar with vexatious litigation, um, Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 8 0 3 discusses what vexatious litigation litigation is. And it's when a party is, a party is continually taking action that is, uh, due to cause increased cost delay, unreasonable and unreasonable action. And so it can happen when they keep bringing claims, they can be designated a vexatious litigant or within an action. If they do three things within that action to increase the cost of litigation, cause unnecessary delay, kind of follow that unreasonable process, then they can be designated a vexatious litigant. And the problem with vexatious litigation is it can cost people hundreds of thousands of dollars just to have someone toy with them in court. And it's very difficult because the standards of, of court to get rid of a case before you take it all the way through, uh, it's very difficult to get outta those court cases, particularly when someone is using the process with the intent to punish other people through that litigation. And we have seen a rise in that. And, and that happens with licensed attorneys and they need to be designated as vexatious lit litigants. And it happens with parties that hire licensed attorneys to do that, but it also happens with parties that are being manipulated by those who are unlicensed. And, and so there's the double problem of vexatious litigation stacked on top of the unlicensed practice of law. And so I would guess that these would work well together.

  6. Senate presiding officer2:31:48

     Thank you. Further discussion on the bill. Senator Johnson.

  7. Sen. John D. Johnson2:31:54

     So I, I, can I ask a question?

  8. Senate presiding officer2:31:59

     He, yes.

  9. Sen. John D. Johnson2:32:00

     Okay. So it's, it's, this sounds a little bit like turf protection. I just want, I I just wonder about that. So by definition, the practice of law is governed by, in our constitution, by the Utah Supreme Court. And so it is already illegal to practice law without a license that is already illegal. And so there is a protected turf already. This bill does not change the protected turf. What it does is it says when people violate that, when they step onto that protected turf, these are the options that are available. And so to the extent you, if you wanna characterize it as as turf protection, I think that's fine. But our ability to, uh, you know, it's already illegal to, for the unauthorized practice of law and the control of that, meaning admission to the bar, and they mean it, when they say the bar, it's not just like, you know, some people may argue whether it's a high bar or a low bar, but it is a bar. And in a, in a courtroom, there's a physical bar that is placed in every courtroom, and you either have to be a litigant or an attorney to walk on the other side of the bar where the judge sits or the jury sits. And so there is a turf that has always been the case within this profession. Now maybe people want to get rid of that and all of that, that would require a constitutional amendment, but yes, there is, there is turf and people that are not licensed to practice law are not permitted on that turf.

  10. Sen. John D. Johnson2:33:38

      Senator Johnson? Yeah, I have, I have another question. Uh, you know, we just voted on a bill to, uh, do a study for new law school, and it seems like to me, uh, the AI systems are getting pretty good at this stuff. And I'm, I'm just curious as to, uh, the sponsor's, uh, opinion about what, what's, what this is going to do to the profession and does this just offer another barrier?

  11. Sen. Brady Brammer2:34:11

      Well, I, when I just want to, I'm gonna try to, uh, understand your question. I assume you're saying what will AI do to the profession and then what will does this bill create another barrier? And so I think that's where you're going with the question. I just wanna make sure, um, what AI will do for the profession is, I think it will be very similar to what internet searches did, to what, you know, research, online research did. It used to be. And, and I had to learn both systems simultaneously. In law school, I had to go learn how to go down to the library, how to pull the books, how to find everything, how to shepherd eyes, things. That's a special research thing that shows what cases have cited prior cases and that you go through all the presidential stuff. And then I also had to learn Lexus and Westlaw. And for a long time people thought that we, that Lexus and Westlaw would make the practice of law. It would degrade it, it would make it so that people didn't need attorneys. But what ended up happening was it just, it became that the research was more advanced than it previously had been. And I think that's what we're finding with ai. You know, my law firm uses ai. We do, but we have to build in specific safeguards to protect against client data. So let's just talk about that. If you feed client data into a large language learning model, you are violating your duty of confidentiality to your client because now it can take that and it can put that out to the world as a resource. And so someone who is unauthorized to practice law would have no accountability for the confidentiality of the client data. That's a big problem. And so now you're taking someone's secrets that they are putting out there or someone's, uh, efforts for advice and you're putting them into an AI system that you may not be able to properly vet for purposes of confidentiality. And when you do that, you get results that are oftentimes here is the thing that you want. So if you talk to attorneys, they will tell you, Hey, I get an email every week from a client telling me exactly how we can win this case. And I receive those emails too, and I look through them and I see, wow, this AI used a lot of really great legal buzzwords and it is in exactly wrong. And in fact it cites statutes that are wrong and it cites statutes as if they're real Utah statutes. And it puts the language of it. And then I go to the Utah code and it's wrong. It doesn't say that. And so I have to go and double check every bit of ai. Now, there are things that AI does really well. It it, it does a really good job putting things into a structure that you can, that you can look at. It also does a great job issue spotting certain things that you can then go research and then reverify. And it's an interactive process back and forth. Like anyone who substantially uses ai, they know that they have to go back and forth and they have to push and prod with it. However, I, while I do agree that AI will change the practice of law, the problem is it cannot change the duties of the attorney to their client. And those duties are essential because you need to maintain the duty of confidentiality. You need to maintain the duty of loyalty. And when you don't maintain those duties, then you are extracted if you violate them enough from representing clients. And that's why we have that high bar because we're dealing with some of the most, we're dealing with largely the most important and difficult problems of people's lives as attorneys. And we, and we require that people be that their highest and best duty, that their loyalty is to their client and not to the bottom line. And that's the difference between a business and a law firm. The law firm has to put their clients above their business interests. I, I, I have a couple more. Senator Johnson.

  12. Sen. John D. Johnson2:38:23

      So right now we already regulate the unauthorized practice of law through the Supreme Court, Utah State Bar enforcement, existing criminal statutes, civil remedies, and this particular law adds a private right of action by a client. Uh, and I I'm just curious as to why, why we now need a private right of action.

  13. Sen. Brady Brammer2:38:50

      Yeah, so what the, what the prohibition said previously in the code was that only the bar could bring a civil action. And it did not allow, uh, it did not, it it allowed anything to happen, but it was, it did not list out the possibilities. Now, the private right of action, why do we do this? Because the person who is impacted and that is damaged by the, uh, use of, um, the, uh, that is damaged by the unauthorized practice of law is not the bar. So the person damaged cannot sue the other person for the unauthorized practice of law. That was never a cause of action recognized by the courts. So the only people that can sue are those that are damaged by it. And so we're trying to create a situation where, so for example, if someone thought that they were leaving in their will, uh, something to their children or, or something to a neighbor, and they, they, they did everything possible to leave it to them, but they, they used a non-attorney to, to receive and received advice and relied upon that advice, that is the unauthorized practice of law. And that person would be damaged after their death, their estate would be damaged because now they're either in, you know, they, they've relied on something that was not reliable. And if, if it was an attorney that gave them the bad advice, they could sue them for malpractice. But when it's an unauthorized person that that violated the law, they would otherwise not have no remedy to go after the person that gave them poor legal advice.

  14. Sen. John D. Johnson2:40:28

      Senator Johnson. I I I, I'm also curious about another thing too. It seems like there's an ambiguity of the separation of powers here. So the legislature is criminalizing conduct defined by the judiciary

  15. Senate presiding officer2:40:44

      Senator Brammer.

  16. Sen. Brady Brammer2:40:45

      So there are, there is no separation of powers problem because we can choose how we enforce the law. Now, the mere fact that the judiciary controls the practice of law does not prevent us from taking steps to protect the citizens of Utah when they act outside the purview of the judiciary. And the reason why that's important is because the judiciary would have no means or effect to, to have the executive enforce their rules with regards to this. Otherwise we would be in violation because the judiciary would be taking the legislative action for the enforcement of their law.

  17. Sen. Brady Brammer2:41:28speaker not certain

      So Senator Johnson, I'm kind of curious too, if, if I help my son fill out paperwork, would that be a violation?

  18. Senate presiding officer2:41:39

      Senator Cullimore?

  19. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore2:41:41

      Um, so it would depend exactly on what you're doing if you were just helping them with, here is your birth certificate information. Here is the factual information that typically wouldn't. However, when you get into here is the law, here is what the law says and what it means and what the impact of that law would be, based upon your actions in filling this out and giving them advice on what to do, eventually that crosses into the unauthorized practice of law.

  20. Senate presiding officer2:42:14

      Thank you. Thank you. Further discussion to the bill. Seeing none. Back to Senator Brammer for summation.

  21. Sen. Brady Brammer2:42:22

      I appreciate the discussion. I I appreciate the questions. Uh, let me geek out a little bit into the world of lawyers and I apologize for everyone that you got to listen and ride along on the, on the Adventures of Lawyers. And so with that, I will move the question.

  22. Senate presiding officer2:42:37

      And the question is, shall second subsequent house Bill two 60 under suspension of the rules pass roll call vote. Senator Vickers Baldy flew in Brammer bus Cullimore Escamilla Fillmore was painful. Grover Harper Aye. Kinins Ipson Johnson, Quan McKay, Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Winterton, president Adams, hang on. Second. Substitute House Bill two 60 having received 25 a votes, two knee votes, two being absent passed the Senate will be sent to the house for further consideration.

  23. Senate presiding officer2:43:47

      House Bill 4 93 House Bill 4 93. Pricing protection amendments. Oops, hang on, hang on. Let me not call that. Need to go to Senator Kwan first.

  24. Senate presiding officer2:45:31

      Okay, now we'll call House Bill four ninety three House Bill 4 93 Pricing Protection Amendments. Senator Sandall. Senator Millner.

  25. Senate presiding officer2:45:56

      What's says up there? Alright, Senator Millner house Bill 4 93.

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)10:03

     Second Substitute house bill two 60 Unauthorized practice of Law amendments by Representative Loubet. Representative Loubet.

  2. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet10:14

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to concur.

  3. Speaker (presiding)10:17

     Thank you representative. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  4. Rep. Anthony E. Loubet10:20

     Yes. So there, uh, in the Senate we made some technical cleanup changes, uh, identified by the drafting attorney and then we also updated the effective date that upon two thirds the bill will go into effect immediately.

  5. Speaker (presiding)10:33

     Thank you Representative Loubet. Discussion to the motion to concur with the Senate amendments on second substitute HB two 60. Seeing none will go ahead and place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? Voting will now be open for final passage on second substitute. HB two Seeing all president having voted voting is now closed. Second substitute HB two 60 Passed this by with 71 Yes. Votes one no vote will be sent to the Senate for the signature of the president. Madam Reading Clerk,