State audit says attorney licensing fees exceed regulatory cost; lawmakers press courts and bar for clearer accounting

At a July 2025 Administrative Rules Review Committee meeting, former State Auditor John Dougal and current State Auditor Tina Cannon presented a limited review of attorney licensing fees paid by Utah lawyers and raised questions about how the Utah State Bar allocates overhead and service spending.

The audit found the bar’s annual, court‑approved license fee for active attorneys is “substantially higher than the associated average cost to regulate those practicing attorneys,” and auditors said they were unable to “fully identify the regulatory expenses that should be properly borne by licensed attorneys because the bar does not adequately track its expenses in a manner that allows us to make that determination,” Dougal told the committee.

Why it matters: Fees that are regulatory should reasonably relate to the cost of regulating a profession, auditors said. Where fees fund services that benefit members or public programs, the auditors argued those items should be accounted separately so attorneys can decline or seek refunds for non‑regulatory spending when the law requires it.

What auditors presented John Dougal, speaking in his capacity as “a former state auditor,” summarized the legal standard the auditors used and the office’s limited review. He cited a Utah case — transcribed as “v 1 oil versus Utah state tax commission” — that the auditors used to distinguish regulatory fees from taxes and non‑regulatory service fees. Dougal told the committee the bar’s accounting did not provide a clear line separating the direct cost of regulation from other activities paid by the license fee.

Current State Auditor Tina Cannon said the office used the same fee criteria it applies statewide. Cannon noted…