- Republican leadership backs bill requiring courts to publish hearings online, disclose financial ties and avoid conflicts at private firms.
- The bill is the latest attempt by lawmakers to check the judiciary. The Legislature already expanded the Supreme Court this session.
- House Speaker Mike Schultz highlighted former Supreme Court justices who joined firms fighting the Legislature on high-profile laws.
Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz demonstrated on Wednesday the Republican-led Legislature is not done placing checks on the state’s judiciary with the introduction of a bill requiring a dramatic increase in transparency from the courts.
In response to high-profile legal battles, HB540 would prevent former Utah Supreme Court justices from immediately joining law firms that are suing the state. Schultz pointed to several cases where this has happened recently on top legislative priorities.
“Former justices are exactly that, former justices,” Schultz said. “But now they are private attorneys that have walked off the bench and suing the state of Utah and asking their former colleagues to rule on cases where they’re benefiting financially. We think that’s wrong.”
Former justices Michael Zimmerman, Christine Durham, Deno Himonas and John Pearce are all linked to law firms that are involved in active lawsuits representing individuals against the Legislature on redistricting, school choice, abortion access and women’s sports.
The justices met with the Deseret News/KSL Editorial Board on Monday to express their concerns about the Legislature’s slate of judicial reforms which they said would politicize the judicial process and make courts less responsive to the needs of Utahns.
In a statement to the Deseret News, Zimmerman called the provisions barring retired judges from working at many major law firms “a pernicious piece of legislation unworthy of the Legislature.” Other former justices did not respond to a request for comment before this story was published.
The bill would ban firms from hiring a judge for two years after the judge leaves office if the firm represents an individual suing state government. A similar “cooling off” period exists to prevent lawmakers from lobbying on behalf of others for one year after leaving office.
“Its effect would be to deny retiring judges any opportunity to work for anything other than non-litigating firms for two years,” Zimmerman said. “Why? No public policy suggested. Just a penalty on judges, and a discouragement for lawyers of quality who might think of applying for a judgeship other than as a retirement from law practice.”
Utah’s rules for attorney professional conduct already prohibit a lawyer from representing anyone in connection with a topic the lawyer oversaw personally as a judge. But the bill would go beyond that to restrict the lawyer’s law firm from touching those issues for a time.
What else does the bill do?
HB540 is part of a broader effort to bring the judiciary into alignment with the standards followed by other branches of government, Schultz said. HB540, sponsored by Rep. Logan Monson, R-Blanding, would improve openness and accountability in a drastic way.
The change is long overdue, according to the GOP lawmakers. A report published last year by Fix the Court, a court reform advocacy group, found that Utah tied for last in its ranking of all 50 states on metrics of disclosure for state judges and justices.
The Capitol’s GOP majority has made judicial reform a central theme of the 2026 legislative session. The first major policy to pass both chambers and be signed into law by Utah Gov. Spencer Cox expanded the state’s top courts by two members.
Court expansion — in addition to other bills establishing a district court focused on constitutional challenges and increasing the threshold for retention elections of judges — has received criticism by the Utah State Bar and former Utah Supreme Court justices.
But Schultz, R-Hooper, said the Legislature needs to go further to ensure the judicial branch of government meets the same standards of accessibility, transparency and independence as the legislative branch. That is where HB540 comes in, according to Schultz.
The bill, made public on Wednesday morning, would require the court system to make audio recordings of public hearings available on a website, centralize court records in a free online database and reverse Utah’s failing grade in judicial disclosures.
Utah is one of two states in the country — the other being Idaho — that has no annual requirement for judges and justices to disclose potential conflicts of interest related to employment, ownership and other finances. HB540 would change that.
It would require judges to comply with the same requirements as candidates for elected office. The state’s disclosure form requires information about employment, ownership of companies, receipts of $5,000 or more from any entity and board membership.
The Utah court system has signaled it is “excited” to collaborate with leaders on the proposals, Schultz said. While the provision blocking work at major law firms for retired judges is likely to draw pushback, Schultz said the bill will change based on feedback from the courts.