Utah Lawmakers Advance Judicial Transparency Bill Despite Privacy Concerns

The bill would increase public access to court records and audio recordings, but raises worries about victim privacy and potential misuse of information.

Published on Feb. 14, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Utah House Judiciary Committee has advanced a bill, HB540, that would require the state's judiciary to create a centralized online access point for public court records and audio recordings. The bill would also mandate judges to disclose potential conflicts of interest. However, the bill has raised concerns from lawmakers and stakeholders about the impact on victim privacy, especially for child victims and victims of sex crimes. There are also worries that court information could be misinterpreted or misused by the public. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Logan Monson, has said he is committed to working with stakeholders to address these concerns as the legislation moves forward.

Why it matters

This bill is part of a broader effort by Utah Republicans to increase transparency and accountability in the state's judicial system. Proponents argue the public deserves greater access to court proceedings, but critics are concerned about unintended consequences, particularly around victim privacy and the potential for misuse of sensitive information.

The details

HB540 would require the Utah judiciary to create a centralized online portal for public access to court records and audio recordings. The bill would also mandate judges and justices to disclose potential conflicts of interest, similar to requirements for elected officials. Additionally, the legislation would prevent former Utah Supreme Court justices from immediately joining law firms that are suing the state.

  • The House Judiciary Committee originally voted to hold the bill, then reconsidered and passed it forward with a favorable recommendation on February 13, 2026.

The players

Rep. Logan Monson

The sponsor of HB540, the Utah lawmaker who presented the bill to the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Tyler Clancy

A Republican state representative who expressed concerns about the bill's impact on victim and witness privacy, particularly for child victims and victims of sex crimes.

Kim Cordoba

The president of the Utah State Bar Association, who voiced concerns that making court proceedings publicly accessible could be harmful to vulnerable individuals dealing with sensitive legal issues.

Steve Burton

A representative of the Utah Defense Attorney Association, who expressed worries that court information could be misinterpreted or misused by the public.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“My concern would be the victim and witness privacy, particularly for child victims and victims of sex crimes, I think there could be a significant privacy concern with hearing those very hard details.”

— Rep. Tyler Clancy, Republican state representative (Deseret News)

“These are vulnerable people. This is a vulnerable time in their lives, and for it to be livestreamed, especially when we're dealing with very serious and private issues, then that is a concern for lawyers in the state.”

— Kim Cordoba, President, Utah State Bar Association (Deseret News)

“When those things become accessible, there may be lots of cases for everyone, that people can look up just on a whim and then misunderstand it and publish it as truth, or as meaning something that it doesn't mean. So I'm very concerned that there may be a use of that information in inappropriate and incorrect ways.”

— Steve Burton, Representative, Utah Defense Attorney Association (Deseret News)

What’s next

The bill will now move to the full Utah House for further consideration, where the sponsor has said he will continue working with stakeholders to address the privacy and misuse concerns that were raised.

The takeaway

This legislation highlights the delicate balance between judicial transparency and protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals involved in court proceedings. As Utah lawmakers seek to increase public access, they will need to carefully weigh the potential benefits against the risks of sensitive information being misused or causing further harm to victims.