Utah
Full firm reach across the Mountain West
Overview
Utah's Reach
The legal landscape of Utah litigation
Utah's court system follows a three-tier structure. Trial courts of general jurisdiction are organized as District Courts across the state's 8 judicial districts covering 29 counties, hearing civil claims above limited-jurisdiction thresholds, felony criminal matters, family law, and probate cases. Justice Courts handle smaller civil claims, misdemeanors, and traffic matters at the county and municipal level, with separate Juvenile Courts handling matters involving minors. Intermediate appellate review runs through the Utah Court of Appeals with seven judges sitting in Salt Lake City, and the Utah Supreme Court serves as the court of last resort. The Utah Supreme Court is among the smallest state supreme courts in the country at five justices, all sitting in Salt Lake City.
Civil procedure operates under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which closely track the Federal Rules. Utah applies modified comparative fault under Utah Code § 78B-5-818, which bars recovery when the plaintiff's fault equals or exceeds the combined fault of the defendants, functionally a 50-percent bar similar to Colorado and Kansas. Statutes of limitations under Utah Code Title 78B establish four years for personal injury under § 78B-2-307, six years for breach of written contract under § 78B-2-309, four years for breach of oral contract, and three years for fraud claims subject to the discovery rule. Utah's four-year personal injury limitation is among the most plaintiff-generous in the country, providing meaningfully longer intake and investigation windows than the two-year periods that apply in most of the firm's other service area states. Utah maintains a Medicaid-specific False Claims Act framework codified in Title 26B of the Utah Code, but does not operate a broader state qui tam structure for non-Medicaid fraud against the state.
Federal practice, the Tenth Circuit, and Utah's industries
Utah has one federal judicial district, the District of Utah, headquartered in Salt Lake City at the Orrin G. Hatch United States Courthouse (opened in 2014), with an additional courthouse in St. George serving southern Utah. The District of Utah's docket includes significant activity in commercial litigation, technology and intellectual property disputes, healthcare fraud qui tam actions, government contracts matters, and federal lands and natural resources disputes. Federal appeals route through the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, headquartered in Denver, which reviews Utah appeals alongside those from Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. The Tenth Circuit's Denver headquarters places Utah federal appellate practice within natural reach of the firm's Denver-based Mountain West bench.
Utah's federal court docket reflects the state's distinctive economic mix. Salt Lake City and the broader Wasatch Front have emerged as a major US technology center, with the Silicon Slopes corridor hosting operations from Adobe, eBay, Oracle, Qualtrics, and other companies, generating significant commercial and intellectual property activity. Healthcare systems including Intermountain Healthcare and University of Utah Health participate in federal Medicare and Medicaid programs that generate ongoing qui tam activity. Utah is also a major center for aerospace and defense manufacturing (Northrop Grumman, L3Harris) and for mining, including the historic Bingham Canyon copper operation. The state contains substantial federal public lands and significant Indian Country jurisdiction, including portions of the Navajo Nation in southeastern Utah and the Ute, Goshute, and Paiute tribal lands, adding jurisdictional complexity to matters arising on or near tribal or federal lands.
The firm's Utah bar admission and Mountain West Tenth Circuit practice
Holdsworth & Inkwell maintains one attorney admitted to the Utah State Bar: Office Managing Partner Marcus Cicero, currently based at the Denver office. Marcus Cicero's Utah admission complements his Colorado and New Mexico bar admissions, providing the firm with three-state Tenth Circuit Mountain West coverage centered in Denver. Marcus leads the firm's False Claims Act practice in the Mountain West region, with case experience spanning healthcare, government contracts, and federal program fraud matters across the Tenth Circuit's six-state coverage area. His combined Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and District of Columbia bar admissions support both regional Mountain West and federal-level FCA practice from the Denver office.
The firm does not maintain a physical office in Utah. Utah matters are handled from the Denver office through Marcus Cicero's direct appearance and pro hac vice admission for additional team members when complex matters require firm resources beyond the single Utah admission. Travel between Denver and Salt Lake City is operationally efficient given the relatively short distance between the two cities (approximately 525 miles), with regular air service and federal court scheduling that supports day-trip and short-stay travel for hearings, depositions, and trial appearances. The single-attorney Utah bar admission supports the firm's Mountain West practice and Tenth Circuit reach rather than positioning the firm as a Utah market participant.
Bar Admission
The Utah Bar
Utah State Bar: governing authority
The Utah State Bar is the mandatory, unified bar for the state: every attorney licensed to practice law in Utah must belong to it. The Bar is not a voluntary association but operates as an administrative arm of the Utah Supreme Court, which holds constitutional authority over the admission, conduct, and discipline of attorneys in Utah. The Bar administers attorney licensing and professional discipline on the Court's behalf, including standard bar exam admission, admission of Licensed Paralegal Practitioners, and pro hac vice admission for out-of-state counsel.
The Utah State Bar was founded in 1931, with regulatory roots tracing back to territorial-era petitions made to the Utah Supreme Court for admission to practice.
The Utah State Bar maintains a public attorney directory and disciplinary records, and clients are welcome to independently verify the standing of any attorney representing them in a Utah matter. Details on our attorneys' bar admissions and standing are also available on our credentials page.
Holdsworth & Inkwell's attorneys practicing in Utah hold active admission to the Utah State Bar.
Procedural Notes
Filing Rules and Local Practice
Procedure shapes strategy well before a filing is made and throughout a matter's progress, not only at trial. The notes below identify filing requirements, local rules, and practice conventions specific to litigating in Utah, distinct from the question of where our attorneys are authorized to appear. Their number and content reflect what is presently relevant to this jurisdiction and may be added to as practice here develops.
Personal injury claims must be filed within four years of accrual under Utah Code § 78B-2-307(3), which provides the general four-year period for actions for relief not otherwise specified by statute. Utah's four-year personal injury SOL is the longest among catalog states, where most jurisdictions use a two-year period (CO, GA, IL, TX, NV, AZ, CT, KS, OK, LA post-July 2024, FL post-HB 837, PA) or a three-year period (NY, NM, MA). The longer Utah period is plaintiff-favorable and provides substantially more time for case development, intake, and pre-suit negotiation.
Wrongful death claims operate under a separate two-year period under Utah Code § 78B-2-304, distinct from the general four-year PI period. Property damage claims follow a three-year period under Utah Code § 78B-2-305(2). The differential treatment of personal injury (four years), wrongful death (two years), and property damage (three years) creates a layered SOL framework that requires careful claim characterization at the outset of litigation.
Medical malpractice claims operate under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act at Utah Code § 78B-3-404 with a two-year SOL from discovery and a four-year statute of repose from the act or omission. The 2/4 framework is more defense-favorable than the general four-year PI period and reflects targeted tort reform for medical liability claims. The four-year repose is comparable to Illinois's four-year and Kansas's four-year repose periods, and shorter than Massachusetts's seven-year, Pennsylvania's seven-year, or Texas's ten-year frameworks.
Written contract claims must be filed within six years of breach under Utah Code § 78B-2-309. Oral contract claims must be filed within four years of breach under Utah Code § 78B-2-307(2). Utah's six-year written contract period aligns with the catalog majority (NY, MA, NV, AZ, CT). The four-year oral contract period parallels Pennsylvania's four-year framework but is shorter than the six-year majority. UCC sale-of-goods claims follow a four-year period from breach under Utah Code § 70A-2-725.
Fraud claims must be filed within three years under Utah Code § 78B-2-305(3), with the discovery rule providing that accrual is delayed until the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the fraud through reasonable diligence. Utah's three-year fraud period aligns with the catalog majority (NM, TX, FL, CO, CT, AZ, NV) and is more flexible than the two-year fraud periods in KS, OK, and PA.
Defamation (libel and slander) operates under a one-year period under Utah Code § 78B-2-302. Utah's one-year defamation period aligns with the catalog majority (NY, CA, DC, GA, IL, CO, TX, AZ, KS, OK, PA) and is more defense-favorable than the two-year periods in Florida, Nevada, and Connecticut or the three-year periods in Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Louisiana (post-July 2024). Utah Governmental Immunity Act requirements under Utah Code § 63G-7 (covered separately) impose additional procedural deadlines for claims against governmental entities, with the 1-year notice requirement and structured timeline operating alongside the underlying SOL periods.
Utah applies a modified comparative fault framework under Utah Code § 78B-5-818 with a 50-percent bar. A plaintiff whose negligence equals or exceeds the combined fault of the defendants is barred from recovery. A plaintiff whose negligence is less than 50 percent recovers damages reduced by their proportionate share of fault. The 'equals or exceeds' framing produces a 50-percent bar (plaintiff barred at equal fault), distinguishing Utah from the 51-percent bar majority and aligning Utah with Colorado, Kansas, and Tennessee in the 50-percent bar minority.
The 50-percent bar is more defense-favorable than the 51-percent bar at the equal-fault threshold. A plaintiff equally at fault (50/50 with one defendant) is barred under Utah law but recovers reduced damages in 51-percent bar jurisdictions (NY, FL, TX, IL, MA, NV, CT, OR, PA, OK). The operational difference matters most in single-defendant cases where comparative fault evidence supports an equal-fault conclusion: in those cases, Utah plaintiffs lose entirely while 51-percent bar plaintiffs recover at least some damages.
Utah's comparative fault framework derives from the Liability Reform Act of 1986, codified at Utah Code § 78B-5-817 et seq. The Liability Reform Act was a comprehensive tort reform package that simultaneously restructured comparative fault, abolished joint and several liability, established several-only allocation, and imposed nonparty fault allocation provisions. The 1986 reform timing places Utah within the broader 1980s tort reform wave that included Connecticut's Tort Reform II (1986), Arizona's Comparative Negligence Act adoption (1984) and several liability addition (1987), and similar reform efforts in other states.
The 1986 Liability Reform Act represented a significant shift from Utah's prior approach. Before 1986, Utah operated under traditional joint and several liability principles common to most US jurisdictions. The 1986 Act fundamentally restructured this framework into the modern several-only allocation system, eliminating most categories of joint liability and establishing a defense-favorable damages allocation regime that has remained largely intact since.
Several liability is the default rule under Utah Code § 78B-5-818. Each defendant is liable only for the percentage of damages attributable to that defendant's fault as determined by the trier of fact. Joint and several liability is essentially abolished for most categories of tort claims, with limited preservation for certain intentional torts and statutory categories. The framework parallels Kansas's Brown v. Keill several-only structure, Arizona's post-1987 several-only framework, and the broader several-only allocation movement among modified comparative fault jurisdictions.
Under Utah Code § 78B-5-818, fault may be allocated to settling parties, immune parties, and parties not named in the lawsuit. The nonparty fault allocation parallels the frameworks in Nevada (NRS 41.141), Arizona (A.R.S. § 12-2506(B)), Connecticut (C.G.S. § 52-572h(c)), Kansas (K.S.A. § 60-258a), and Oklahoma (23 O.S. § 15). The framework requires defendants to identify potentially responsible nonparties and develop evidence about their conduct to maximize the allocation of fault away from named defendants.
Among catalog states, Utah forms a 50-percent bar cohort with Colorado (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), Kansas (K.S.A. § 60-258a), and Tennessee (McIntyre v. Balentine, 1992). The four-state cohort represents a defense-favorable minority within the modified comparative fault framework, with the 50-percent bar producing different outcomes than the 51-percent bar majority at the equal-fault threshold. The cohort spans different adoption methods: Colorado, Kansas, and Utah adopted through statute, while Tennessee adopted through judicial decision (McIntyre v. Balentine, Tenn. 1992).
Utah's Governmental Immunity Act under Utah Code § 63G-7-101 et seq. governs tort claims against the State of Utah, counties, municipalities, school districts, and other governmental entities. Utah Code § 63G-7-402 requires written notice of the claim to be filed within one year of the date the claim arose. The one-year notice period falls within the moderate range among catalog states: longer than the 90-day NM notice, 180-day AZ notice, and 6-month CA/GA/TX/DC notice periods, but shorter than the 2-year Massachusetts MTCA presentment and the 3-year Florida § 768.28 presentment.
The notice must be filed in writing and must contain specific content under Utah Code § 63G-7-401: a brief statement of the facts giving rise to the claim, the nature of the claim asserted, the dollar amount of damages claimed insofar as can be reasonably determined, and the identity of any governmental employees involved. The notice must be served on the appropriate governmental entity, with specific service requirements depending on whether the claim is against the State or a political subdivision. Content failures and improper service can bar the claim independently of timing compliance.
After notice is filed, the governmental entity has 60 days to act on the claim under Utah Code § 63G-7-403(1)(a). The entity may approve the claim, deny the claim, or fail to act within the 60-day period (in which case the claim is deemed denied under § 63G-7-403(2)). The 60-day response period is shorter than Oklahoma's 90-day GTCA response period under 51 O.S. § 157(A) and Massachusetts's six-month MTCA wait period, providing faster procedural turnaround for claimants.
The deemed-denial provision is operationally important. If the entity fails to act within 60 days, the claim is automatically denied as a matter of law, allowing the claimant to proceed to suit without further administrative engagement. The framework provides clear procedural certainty: claimants know exactly when they may proceed to court (60 days after filing notice, unless the entity has denied or settled the claim earlier).
After the claim is denied (or deemed denied after 60 days), the claimant has one year to commence suit under Utah Code § 63G-7-403(2). The 1-year filing window is more generous than Oklahoma's 180-day filing window under 51 O.S. § 157(B), providing claimants with substantial time to prepare and file suit after the administrative phase concludes. The combination of the 1-year notice deadline, 60-day response period, and 1-year filing window produces a structured timeline that can extend up to approximately 2 years and 2 months from the date of injury.
The framework operates as a condition precedent to suit. Missing the 1-year notice deadline, the 1-year filing window, or the specific content requirements bars the claim regardless of the underlying merits. Practitioners must coordinate the three procedural deadlines (notice, response, filing) and ensure compliance with each step. Utah courts apply strict construction to the procedural requirements, particularly the timing deadlines, requiring careful calendaring and case management.
Utah Code § 63G-7-604 imposes statutory damages caps on governmental tort claims, with the cap amounts adjusted periodically based on the Consumer Price Index. The framework includes a per-claimant cap for individual claims and an aggregate per-occurrence cap for incidents involving multiple claimants. The CPI-adjusted framework is operationally distinctive among catalog states: most jurisdictions impose fixed dollar amounts that are revised only through legislative amendment (Florida's $200K/$300K, Nevada's $200K per claimant, Massachusetts's $100K per claimant, Kansas's $500K per occurrence, Oklahoma's $175K per claimant).
The CPI-adjusted cap framework provides automatic inflation adjustment, gradually increasing the available recovery against governmental entities over time without requiring legislative action. Practitioners evaluating Utah governmental tort claims must verify the current cap amounts in effect at the time of the underlying incident, since the applicable cap depends on the date of the claim. The framework reflects a deliberate policy choice to balance sovereign immunity protection with inflation-adjusted recovery for substantial governmental tort claims.
Attorneys are licensed only in the jurisdictions listed in their individual credentials. Admission to practice varies by attorney and by court; nothing on this page implies licensure in any jurisdiction not expressly stated.
Locations
Your Team on This Matter
Holdsworth & Inkwell operates as one integrated practice, not a set of local branches each setting its own bar. The attorneys assigned to a matter here are chosen for what the matter itself requires, the relevant experience and admissions, not for which office happens to sit closest on a map. That team works from the same preparation, the same judgment, and the same accountability the firm holds to everywhere it appears, because the standard is set by the firm, not by geography.
A dispute is rarely a contained legal question. It carries exposure, operational stakes, and a client's standing with courts and counterparts they are likely to see again, so the team built around it draws on that fuller view rather than on proximity alone. The firm has built its reputation on relationships that outlast any single matter, and that discipline travels with every attorney assigned here. See where Holdsworth & Inkwell practices.
headquarters
Sacramento
The firm's founding office and headquarters since 1962, located one block from the California State Capitol.
regional
Atlanta
Southeast office opened 2008 near the Georgia State Capitol, anchoring the firm's False Claims Act practice in the Eleventh Circuit.
regional
Austin
Texas office opened 2014 near the State Capitol, anchoring insurance recovery for Texas and Oklahoma severe weather events.
regional
Denver
Mountain West office opened 2019 near the Colorado State Capitol, covering wildfire litigation and Tenth Circuit federal practice.
Attorneys
Counsel Admitted in Utah
Admission to the Utah State Bar determines who appears here, not which of the firm's offices an attorney is based in. Each attorney listed is authorized to practice in Utah, held to the same standard of preparation and judgment applied across the firm.
Matters
Handled in Utah
The matters below reflect work the firm has actually carried out in Utah. They draw on the same bench and the same standard applied in every state where the firm practices. Some jurisdictions carry a longer record than others, particularly where the firm's presence rests on bar admission rather than an office. What appears here reflects that reality, not an effort to round it out. Each entry describes matters the firm has handled, not a forecast of what a future matter would look like.
Defended Manufacturer in Utah Personal Injury Action
jury-verdict2024UtahResolved Utah Medicaid Fraud Investigation Through Pre-Suit Resolution
dispute-resolution2023Utah
Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.
Mountain West reach, one call away
Utah Coverage, Full Firm Behind It
A single jurisdiction rarely tells the whole story of a matter's exposure or the counsel it calls for. Where the work touches False Claims Act litigation, that is where the firm's deepest bench in this region sits, built for the Tenth Circuit's reach across the Mountain West. We welcome the chance to talk through the fit.