Commentary

• Jurisdiction: Utah,United States
• Citation: Vol. 36 No. 1 Pg. 56
• Pages: 56
• Publication year: 2023

Commentary Vol. 36 No. 1 Pg. 56 Utah Bar Journal January, 2023

January, 2023

An Apology for Lawyers and the Utah State Bar

by Mark O. Morris

In the late 1500s, an English soldier and writer by the name of Sir Philip Sidney wrote a treatise called An Apology for Poetry (also called The Defense of Poesy). In it he defends "poetry" (or what we regard more now as "literature") as a better vehicle to rouse people to virtuous conduct than two other disciplines of the time, either history or philosophy. Very simply, he pointed out that history often taught that bad behavior and bad people too often prevailed, while philosophy was just too confusing to allow practical application to everyday life. Better, he thought, to tell fictional stories about virtuous people embodying positive philosophies to endure and sometimes overcome challenges and hardships, if you truly want to inspire readers to be better people.

A couple of things, one not so recent and the other very recent, inspired me to put some thoughts to pen to .. well .. apologize for, or defend Utah lawyers and the organization to which we all belong if we want to practice law here, the integrated Utah State Bar. First, I don't think lawyers, generically, need an apology for who they are, what they do, or how the legal system works. But for a couple of years now I've been ruminating on how I see the practice of law here. My first inspiration to write comes primarily from some not so subtle criticisms that have been heaped on the Utah State Bar and lawyers generally as a predicate for suggesting that the practice of law in Utah needs to be modernized, revolutionized, disrupted, and in some extreme cases, replaced.

Let me be clear here. I do not intend here to criticize the idea of regulatory reform of the practice of law, the Office of Legal Innovation, or the "Sandbox." A controlled, experimental environment like the Sandbox is a fantastic idea so long as there is mandatory transparency about all aspects of the people playing in it. And exploring ways to make legal advice and legal services more available is an aspiration no one can argue with. I'll touch on those in a bit. But while I am not at all critical of the idea of making some legal services more available to people at a lower expense, I reject out of hand and resent the premise I hear most often for these suggested changes. I've been hearing that the Utah State Bar, lawyers, and the courts have "failed," because there are unmet legal needs in our society, and because lawyers are perceived as too expensive. I've also heard that lawyers and the Utah State Bar are "obstructionist," "protectionist," and "self-serving." As if "justice" were something being hoarded by a few, and dispensed only at extortionate prices. I could not disagree more.

I've been a lawyer and member of Utah's Bar for thirty-seven years. I do not consider myself a Bar "junkie." My desire to become a Bar Commissioner arose when I had lunch with a colleague in the profession many years ago who confessed to me he hated his job. That was horrible to hear, and I wanted to see if I could make a difference in helping to make practicing law better for those who struggle to enjoy and find satisfaction in it. I've been a Bar Commissioner for the Third Division for five years. I chaired the Construction Section for some time before that, and I co-chaired the Annual Meeting in Sun Valley ten years ago. That's my Bar resume. My proposition here is that merely because there is always room for improvement, "failure" and the purported need for drastic reform should not necessarily be inferred. And certainly not in the case of the Utah State Bar. I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea that some legal services could be offered, and some legal needs met, more efficiently and economically. But Utah lawyers, Utah courts, and the Bar have not failed, in my opinion, to deliver what each is charged to deliver. The fact that there is room for improvement does not equate to...