Legislative Updates - 23 February 2026

<< All 2026 updates

GrassRoots

Committed to Promoting the Principles of Limited Government, Constitution, Representative Government, Participatory Republic, Free Market Economy, Family, and Separation of Powers

www.utahgrassroots.org

Utah GrassRoots Legislative Update—23 February 2026 (5 weeks into the 2026 General Session of the Utah State Legislature)

Contents:

• Pages 1-4: Equal Treatment Under The Law and a bill catching our attention: --HB260Sub1, “Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments”.
• Pages 4-5: Another bill catching our attention: --HB88Sub5, “Public Assistance Amendments”, addressing lawful presence for receipt of public benefit.
• Page 5: Updated status on bills covered in previous updates: --HCR6Sub1, “[House] Concurrent Resolution Regarding the Utah Housing Strategic Plan” passed the Senate, and awaits action by the Governor; and --SB165Sub1, “Economic Mobility Initiative”, passed the Senate, and awaits consideration by a House committee.

Dear Friends:

This is GrassRoots’ 5th legislative update of this year’s General Session of the Utah State Legislature. At this time (5 weeks into the session), there are about 980 numbered bills for this session on the Utah Legislature website. Here are some bills and issues that we consider to be noteworthy.

Equal Treatment Under The Law and a bill catching our attention:

Equal Treatment Under The Law has been an American ideal since our founding. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . .” (Declaration of Independence). Various human rights are enumerated in our Bill of Rights, that are not to be infringed or violated by the Government. These should not be viewed as privileges bestowed by Government upon favored elites or cronies. Rather they should be viewed as universal human rights to be respected by the Government.

With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, explicit language was added as follows: “No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Language similar to our Bill of Rights may also be found in Article I of the Utah State Constitution, along with a prescription for Equal Treatment Under The Law in Article I, Section 24: “All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.”

Of course, historically, and continuing into today, monied interests (and even some less-wealthy interests) have often sought preferential treatment, leading to complicated tax codes, large amounts of spending, and extensive regulations that, in the end, are not well-calculated to benefit (or even meant to benefit) the general interest, but rather benefit the interests of the well-connected. Much of today’s preferential treatment comes in the form of Government-granted licenses and privileges that are not universal.

We have not been immune to such preferential treatment in Utah Government, including during the current Legislative session. Following is one bill that, we are concerned, goes against the ideal of Equal Treatment Under The Law.

HB260Sub1, “Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Loubet and Senator Brammer, would address the “unauthorized practice of law”--the “authorized practice of law” apparently being limited (with some exceptions) to “persons who are active, licensed Bar members in good standing” (see Utah Code of Judicial Administration, Rule 14-802)-- arguably a Government-created monopoly. (In order to find Rule 14-802, go to www.utcourts.gov/rules, then select "Code of Judicial Administration", then select "Ch 14 Rules Governing the Utah State Bar", then find Rule 14- 802 by scrolling down to “Article 8”.) HB260Sub1 passed the House 62-4 on February 6th, and awaits action by the Senate Rules Committee.

Following are some provisions of HB260Sub1, by which the “unauthorized practice of law” is to be addressed, along with some comments by Utah GrassRoots:

• “Practice of law” is defined as “representing the interests of another person by informing, counseling, advising, assisting, advocating for, or drafting documents for that person through applying the law and associated legal principles to that person’s facts and circumstances” (see lines 37-38 in the bill, and the previously mentioned Rule 14- 802). GrassRoots comment: This kind of conduct does not strike us as being inherently criminal when 2 parties agree to the relationship, whether the one “practicing law” is licensed by the government or not. This is called “Freedom of Association.”
• “Unauthorized practice of law” is defined as including practice of law “if the person . . . is not admitted and licensed to practice law within this state” (see lines 39-47). GrassRoots: This is effectively already in Utah Code, and is not really changed by HB260Sub1. Basically the code is saying you have to have a license from the state to practice law. We question the soundness of this licensing requirement, and will discuss this more below.
• The Board of Commissioners for the Utah State Bar (board) would be empowered to “bring a civil action against a person for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law”, with possible consequences (if the board prevails) including a fine of up to $10,000, and awarding of “reasonable attorney fees and costs to the board” (lines 34, 63-74). GrassRoots: As we read the bill, these punitive-looking consequences do not appear to be conditional upon a finding of actual damages to the client, but only upon a finding of “unauthorized practice of law”.
• “A client has a right of action against a person if the client sustains damages or other harm as a result of the person engaging in the unauthorized practice of law” (lines 75-76). GrassRoots: We agree that a client may have a right of civil action against the person representing him if the client suffers harm as a result of incompetent and-or sloppy representation. But we are curious if a client has a similarly recognized right of civil action against a government-licensed attorney. (We hope so, but our research is not complete on this question.) On the principle of Equal Treatment Under The Law, we think the question should center around harm suffered due to bad representation--not around whether the representative had a government-issued license.
• HB260Sub1 would make “unauthorized practice of law” a class A misdemeanor. (lines 92-93), punishable with up to 364 days imprisonment, and up to a $2,500 fine. GrassRoots: This is punitive treatment for conduct that is not inherently criminal. In fact, in some cases, what is called the “unauthorized practice of law” is actually a combination of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association, and, in some cases, enabling the full recognition of an individual’s Sixth Amendment right “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” (See also Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 12.)
• HB260Sub1 would make “unauthorized practice of law” a 3rd degree felony (with up to 5 years imprisonment and fine up to $5,000) in case of false representation of authorization to practice law (lines 94- 97). GrassRoots: We agree that it is criminal conduct to tell a client that you have a government-issued license to practice law when you do not, and that our laws should punish fraud. We do not oppose this provision in the bill.
• HB260Sub1 would make “unauthorized practice of law” a 3rd degree felony if “the person's unauthorized practice of law causes a client to suffer . . . monetary loss or damages exceeding $1,000; or . . . a significant impairment of a legal right” (see lines 94-94, 98-100). GrassRoots: As previously mentioned, if, due to incompetent or sloppy representation, a client suffers harm, he should have a recognized right of civil action, whether the representation is licensed or not. This proposed 3rd degree felony punishment raises another question: We are curious: If due to incompetent or sloppy representation by a licensed attorney, a client suffers damages exceeding $1,000 or significant impairment of a legal right, is the licensed attorney (under pre-existing code) considered guilty of a 3rd degree felony? If not, then this would appear to be contrary to the principle of Equal Treatment Under The Law. (Our research of Utah Code on this topic is not complete.)

As previously mentioned, we question the soundness of the government licensing requirement to enable a person to do what is defined in Rule 14- 802 as “practice of law”. In our discussion of The Proper Role of Government in our update of February 17th, we mentioned a couple paradigms of Government: “Government as Master” (the paradigm that has been at the foundation of numerous historical instances of despotism), and “Government as Agent of the People” (the paradigm at the center of our country’s founding). How can it be that We the People ordained our Agent (the Government) to practice and interpret Law, but those ordaining them do not have such authority themselves? (See Preamble to United States Constitution; see also Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 2.)

We think these changes to Utah Code proposed in HB260Sub1 pose the following problems:

• They punish and criminalize behavior that is not inherently criminal.
• They emphasize government licensure (or lack thereof) over actual harm caused by incompetent or sloppy representation.
• They appear to go against the principle of Equal Treatment Under The Law. We are concerned that we have created a Ruling Class, and various "norms" in which some (those "authorized to practice law") are “more equal than others”, and HB260Sub1 takes us farther down that path.
• Effectively, they advance the paradigm of “Government as Master”, while attacking the paradigm of “Government as Agent of the People.”

GrassRoots favors a “no” vote on HB260Sub1.

Before moving on, we would like to make a couple more observations:

• Utah State Constitution, Article VIII, Section 4, with its language that "The Supreme Court by rule shall govern the practice of law, including admission to practice law and the conduct and discipline of persons admitted to practice law" may look like a justification for HB260Sub1 to some legislators. But we believe it is a stretch to say that Article VIII, Section 4 necessitates creating all of the criminal penalties that HB260Sub1 creates. If the Supreme Court creates a bad rule, the Legislature does not need to enforce that bad rule. If the Supreme Court creates a bad rule in this regard, they can probably enforce it themselves by taking measures to keep "unauthorized" practitioners out of their court rooms--at least so long as the Legislature does not impeach and convict them.
• We question how carefully the members of Utah’s House of Representatives read HB260Sub1 before voting overwhelmingly to pass it. In the House floor discussion of HB260Sub1, one Representative raised some good questions and observations concerning the bill’s possible problems, but he was the only one. We suspect that, among the 62 Representatives voting for HB260Sub1, there was a significant number that believe in the paradigm of “Government as Agent of the People”, but simply did not recognize HB260Sub1 as contrary to that principle, because they had not read and understood it with due diligence before voting for it. We would again, therefore, urge consideration of the question posed in our update of February 2nd: “Should our representatives read bills before passing them into law?”

Another bill catching our attention this week:

HB88Sub5, “Public Assistance Amendments”, sponsored by Representative Lee, would:

• remove authority for an agency or political subdivision of the state to skip verification of lawful presence for receipt of a state or local public benefit or a federal public benefit the state administers;
• prohibit an agency or political subdivision of the state from providing state or local public benefits to an individual who is unlawfully present in the United States, with certain exceptions;
• require an agency or department to conduct certain audits;
• provide that the Office of the Legislative Auditor General may conduct a certain audit under certain circumstances;
• allow a certain individual a private right of action against a certain governmental employee under certain circumstances; and
• provide for criminal or civil penalties under certain circumstances.

HB88Sub5 passed the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee 7-3 on Feb 17th, and awaits consideration by full House. The fiscal note for HB88Sub5 estimates reduced expenditures totaling about $2 million--welcome savings for the taxpayer. Also HB88Sub5 appears to be a good step in the direction of Utah not being a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants. GrassRoots favors a “yes” vote on HB88Sub5.

Updates on bills covered in past updates:

HCR6Sub1, “Concurrent Resolution Regarding the Utah Housing Strategic Plan”, sponsored by Representative Whyte and Senator Fillmore, would support the implementation of the Utah Housing Strategic Plan. For additional coverage of HCR6Sub1 and the Utah Housing Strategic Plan, see our update of February 17th. HCR6Sub1 passed the House 41-26 on February 6th, and the Senate 22-3 on February 20th, and awaits action by the Governor. We think there may be some good ideas in the Plan, but we are concerned about its apparent tendencies toward central planning, government (meaning taxpayer) funding, and inappropriate use of government force. GrassRoots still favors a “no” vote on HCR6Sub1.

SB165Sub1, “Economic Mobility Initiative”, sponsored by Senator Fillmore and Representative Clancy, would establish a program to support community- based partnerships focused on educational and economic outcomes. The fiscal note for SB165Sub1 estimates that it would cost $5.1 million per year. For additional coverage of SB165Sub1, see our update of February 17th. SB165Sub1 passed the Senate 3rd (final) reading 16-8 on February 17th, and awaits consideration by the House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee. This does not look to us like an appropriate use of government force. We would prefer a $5 million tax cut. GrassRoots still favors a “no” vote on SB165Sub1.

If you have any questions about these bills, GrassRoots’ position on these bills, or related matters, please contact either of us or any other member of the Board of Utah GrassRoots.

Sincerely,

Steve Stromness
Vice-Chairman, Bill Review Coordinator, Utah GrassRoots
steven.stromness@gmail.com
435-637-5248

Don Guymon
Chairman, Utah GrassRoots
donguymon@gmail.com
801-574-9461

PS Do you want to contact a legislator? Go to le.utah.gov and click on “Legislators”.

Do you want to read and follow legislation yourself? Go to le.utah.gov and select “Bills” then “2026 Bills”.

Do you have friends that would appreciate this legislative update? Please feel free to forward it to them.