State of Justice: October 2026 Ethics Updates

Was the Utah House’s release of a Supreme Court justice complaint ‘unlawful’? 

As AFJAC highlighted in May, the release of a confidential complaint involving former Utah supreme court Justice Diana Hagen raised concerns about fairness and independence in Utah’s judicial oversight. The Office of the Legislative Auditor General released its audit of a recent legislative audit and concluded that although the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) “generally” followed its established guidelines in handling the complaint about Hagen, it needed a review to improve its processes. The JCC ultimately declined to open a full investigation of former justice Hagen, finding the complaint had little credibility. Nevertheless,  Hagen denied wrongdoing and resigned in May before an independent probe sought by the governor and legislative leaders began. The audit identified risks to impartiality after a commissioner commented on the complainant’s character before recusing. It recommended clearer guidance for conflict disclosures and recusal, and stronger documentation of investigations the commission considered but did not pursue. These findings point to the need for stronger safeguards, not a presumption that allegations against a judge are true. Clear rules and a documented basis for decisions can strengthen accountability while protecting judicial independence. For advocates and policymakers, the goal should be a fair ethics process that investigates credible misconduct without allowing personal relationships or political disagreements to substitute for evidence.