House approves Public Attorneys Act after heated debate on process and authority

The Utah House on Feb. 24 passed House Bill 139, the Public Attorneys Act, after extended debate over whether the measure should be rushed through the session or studied further.

Representative Curtis, sponsor of the bill, told colleagues the measure "simply goes through the 30 public attorneys in the state of Utah and tries to define their responsibilities as public attorneys," drawing a distinction between civil counsel functions and prosecutorial duties and arguing the bill "does not strip the Attorney General of power and authority." He said the bill aims to restore what the state's constitutional framers envisioned by clarifying who makes the ultimate litigation decisions for executive agencies.

Supporters framed the measure as a policy clarification. Representative Swallow said the Constitution makes the attorney general an adviser to state officers and that the Legislature has authority to define additional duties. Representative Pace described the changes to the municipal‑bond code earlier in the day, emphasizing that legislative action was consistent with constitutional duties.

Opponents pressed two themes: timing and separation of powers. Representative Aaron and others said the bill had been released late in the session and had not received enough public review; Aaron asked for more time "to look at the ramifications and make sure that there are no unintended consequences." Several members warned the change could shift core policy decisions from elected public attorneys to the executive branch. Representative Throckmorton and Representative Carlson urged that the issue be studied over the interim and that stakeholders — including the 29 county attorneys' offices and advocacy groups — be brought together before acting.

The floor also heard concrete examples that animated supporters. Representative Curtis read from a trial court order he said illustrated a conflict between an assistant attorney general and an executive agency (Division of Child and Family Services), arguing that agency clients need clear representation and that statutory language should clarify who directs litigated positions. Curtis said legislative research and counsel had found no constitutional infirmity and noted the bill’s delayed effective date was intended to reduce partisan appearance.

A motion to send HB139 to the Rules Committee for interim study failed (20–40) after debate and a successful motion to close further debate. The House later moved to final passage; following a call of the House and voting, the Clerk announced the result: HB139 passed, 49 yes to 20 no, and will be referred to the Senate.

The measure drew sustained floor attention because members disagreed both about its policy merits and about whether the House had allowed adequate time for consideration. Representative Curtis said he had held committee hearings and was open to statutory clarifications, while opponents maintained the constitutional and policy questions were large enough to require an interim study.

The House adjourned for lunch and scheduled later business, including a briefing on the tobacco settlement and placement of the bond bill on a time‑certain calendar for the afternoon session.