'Change Frightens Us All:' Utah Justice Himonas on Why Deregulation, Innovation Still the Path Forward for Law
Utah Justice Deno Himonas says deregulation is one path forward to solving the access-to-justice crisis he says the country is facing. Others may be through technology or innovations yet imagined. He encourages other states to have these discussions.
January 09, 2020 at 01:10 PM
4 minute read
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?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readSidley Austin Elects Biggest Combined Class of Partners and Counsel in Firm History
Boies Schiller Increases Federal Clerkship Bonus to $150K Amid Hiring Uptick
MoFo Poaches More Tech Talent From Goodwin With 3-Partner ECVC Group
Trending Stories
- 1When Dealing With Child Abuse Cases, Attorneys Need to Know How Children Perceive Time
- 2Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 3HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
- 4Another Latham Partner Heads to Sidley in London
- 5In 'Kousisis,' the DOJ Once Again Pushes the Limits of Federal Fraud Prosecutions
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250