{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Ray Quinney & Nebeker P.C.","Justin Toth"]
[]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Client Privilege Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Attorney-Clien","index":1,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","USA, Utah"]
["Attorney-Client/Solicitor-Client Privilege (ACP)"]
["Is the ACP recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes. \nUtah Code Ann. § 78B-1-137 (2) (“An attorney cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to the attorney or any advice given regarding the communication in the course of the professional employment.”); see also \nUtah R. Evid. 504 (defining the scope of “lawyer-client” privilege).\n"]
["If the ACP is not recognized in your jurisdiction, are there rules of professional confidentiality or other rules that would enable a lawyer or a client to withhold attorney-client communications or work product prepared by counsel from disclosure in a civil proceeding?\n\nNote: This question is directed primarily to civil law jurisdictions that do not recognize common law jurisdictions’ privilege doctrines.","Not applicable.\n"]
["Is a distinction made in applying the ACP or professional confidentiality rules in civil and criminal proceedings? May government authorities require disclosure of attorney-client communications and legal work product?","Not applicable.\n"]
["In the corporate context, what test is applied to determine who within a corporation is considered the client for the purposes of the ACP?  (e.g., in the U.S.: the Upjohn approach, control group test, etc.)","Utah courts follow the test set forth in \nUtah Rule of Professional Responsibility 4.2(d) (1)-(2), which incorporates the “control group” test, but also includes those persons “whose acts or omissions in the matter may be imputed to the organization under applicable law” or “whose statements under applicable rules of evidence would have the effect of binding the organization with respect to proof of the matter.” Id.\n"]
["Is in-house counsel expected to meet a higher burden than outside counsel in order to establish that privilege applies to in-house counsel’s communications?","No, but in-house counsel’s advice must be purely “legal” advice and not “business” or other non-legal communications to satisfy the elements of the privilege.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: May in-house counsel assert privilege or professional confidentiality?","Not applicable.\n"]
["Civil Law Jurisdictions: Is in-house counsel allowed to be active members of your jurisdiction’s bar?","Not applicable.\n"]
["Is the common interest doctrine recognized in your jurisdiction?","Not applicable.\n"]
["How is the doctrine articulated in your jurisdiction?","Not applicable.\n"]
["Must a common interest agreement be in writing?","Not applicable.\n"]
["Is litigation funding permitted in your jurisdiction?  Are there any professional rules in this respect?","Yes. Litigation funding must comply with \nUtah Code Ann. § 13-57-101, et. seq.\n"]
["Have the courts in your jurisdiction addressed whether communications with litigation funders may be protected by the ACP or the work-product protection","Not to date.\n"]
["Is the crime-fraud exception recognized in your jurisdiction?","Yes. the crime-fraud exception is recognized in Utah.\n"]
["What statutes or key court decisions articulate the crime-fraud exception in your jurisdiction?","Utah Rule of Evidence 504(d)(1); Lifewise Master Funding v. Telebank, 206 F.R.D. 298 (D. Utah 2002).\n"]
["Work Product Doctrine/Litigation Privilege (doctrine that protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial)"]
["Is there a statute or rule that protects information obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation from disclosure in legal proceedings?  (In the U.S.:  What state rule is your jurisdiction’s analog to FRCP 26(b)(3)?)","Yes. \nUtah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)."]
["What are the elements of the protection in your jurisdiction?","See Gold Standard, Inc. v. Am. Barrick Res. Corp., 805 P.2d 164, 169–70 (Utah 1990) (applying \nFed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3) and setting forth a three-part test for work product: “1) documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable, 2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, 3) by or for another party or by or for that party’s representative”).\n"]
["Other Privileges"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize an accountant-client privilege?","No, Utah does not recognize an accountant-client privilege.\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a mediation privilege?","Yes. The privileges and confidentiality of the mediation process are set forth in the \nUtah Uniform Mediation Act, Utah Code Ann. § 78b-10-101, et. seq.\n"]
["Does your jurisdiction recognize a settlement negotiation privilege?","Yes. The privilege against disclosure for mediation communications is set forth in \nUtah Code Ann. § 78b-10-104. In addition, “compromise offers and negotiations” are likewise inadmissible “to prove or disprove liability or the validity or amount of a disputed claim” as set forth in \nUtah Rule of Evidence 408."]