Utah has enacted a meaningful improvement in access to court proceedings.
Beginning January 1, 2027, Utah Code § 78A-1-203 will require an audio recording of each public court proceeding in Utah’s state courts, except justice courts. Any individual may request the recording, and the Administrative Office of the Courts must provide it. When the requester is a party to the case, the AOC must expedite the request “to the extent possible.”
A related amendment to Utah Code § 78A-2-301.7 prohibits the Judicial Council from charging a party a fee for requesting an audio recording of a public court proceeding.
These provisions were enacted as part of H.B. 540, the Judicial Transparency and Information Access Amendments.
The law does not create livestreamed courtrooms, require recordings to be posted automatically online, or make private proceedings public. It does something simpler and immediately useful: public proceedings must be recorded, and the recordings must be provided upon request.
That is genuine progress.
What the new law requires
Effective January 1, 2027, § 78A-1-203 provides:
“An audio recording shall be made of each public court proceeding.”
The recording must include every open portion of the proceeding, from commencement through adjournment.
The statute further provides:
“Upon a request for an audio recording of a public court proceeding, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide the audio recording to the individual.”
The word “shall” matters. Providing the recording is not a discretionary favor. If an individual requests the audio of a public proceeding, the AOC must provide it.
Parties receive additional consideration. Their requests must be expedited “to the extent possible.”
That phrase does not guarantee same-day delivery or impose a definite deadline. It does, however, recognize that parties often need recordings promptly—to prepare a proposed order, evaluate an objection, determine precisely what the court decided, consult appellate counsel, or decide whether further relief is warranted.
Parties will no longer be charged
Beginning January 1, 2027, the Judicial Council may not charge a party a fee for requesting an audio recording of a public court proceeding.
The importance of that change is not limited to the current $15 fee.
A court proceeding is an exercise of government power over the rights, property, liberty, family relationships, and legal obligations of the people appearing before it. A party should not have to pay the court to hear an accurate recording of what the court did in that party’s own case.
The recording is also often necessary to perform work the court itself requires.
In family law cases, courts frequently direct one attorney to prepare a proposed written order memorializing an oral ruling. Whether that order is accurate may turn on a single qualification, exception, date, condition, or limitation spoken during a lengthy hearing.
Free access to the recording should improve the accuracy of proposed orders, reduce disputes over their wording, and lessen reliance on hurried notes and conflicting memories.
The law applies only to public proceedings
H.B. 540 does not make nonpublic proceedings public.
Section 78A-1-203 applies to “public court proceedings” and requires recordings of their “open portions.” If a proceeding, or a portion of it, is lawfully closed, the statute does not convert that material into a public record.
That limitation is particularly important in family law. Child custody disputes, protective-order proceedings, adoptions, juvenile matters, and hearings involving medical, psychological, or financial evidence can raise substantial privacy and safety concerns.
H.B. 540 does not erase those concerns. It improves access to proceedings that are already open to the public.
The statute also expressly excludes justice courts.
What H.B. 540 does not do
The law is worthwhile, but it should not be credited with doing more than it does.
It does not:
- establish a firm deadline for producing a requested recording;
- guarantee same-day delivery;
- authorize parties or attorneys to make their own contemporaneous recordings;
- turn an audio recording into a certified transcript;
- apply to justice courts; or
- require automatic online publication.
Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rules 4-401.01 and 4-401.02 will continue to govern personal recording and electronic media coverage in courtrooms.
The distinction between an audio recording and a transcript also remains important. An official court recording may reliably establish what was said, but a certified transcript may still be required for appellate or evidentiary purposes.
These limitations are not reasons to dismiss the law. They are reasons to describe it accurately.
Why the change matters in family law
Family law hearings frequently produce detailed oral rulings that must later be converted into precise written orders.
In a single hearing, a judge or commissioner may rule on parent-time schedules, decision-making authority, payment deadlines, possession of property, discovery obligations, therapy arrangements, support calculations, and communication restrictions.
The written order controls what the parties must do. Yet its first draft is often prepared by one party’s attorney rather than by the court.
Access to the recording helps everyone:
- The drafting attorney can prepare a more accurate order.
- Opposing counsel can determine whether the draft matches the ruling.
- Self-represented parties can verify what the court actually ordered.
- Judges and commissioners face fewer disputes caused by incomplete notes or honest differences in recollection.
- Appellate counsel can evaluate the hearing without relying solely on secondhand descriptions.
Transparency is not merely about allowing outsiders to observe the judiciary. It is also about allowing the people governed by a judicial decision to know reliably what happened.
A restrained but important reform
H.B. 540 does not fling open every courtroom door or place every hearing on the internet.
Its approach is more restrained. Public proceedings must be recorded. People may request the recordings. The AOC must provide them. Parties receive expedited treatment where possible and cannot be charged a fee.
That is not radical. It is basic procedural fairness.
Beginning January 1, 2027, a party should no longer have to pay the court for an audio recording of what occurred in the party’s own public hearing. Utah should now ensure that the request process is simple and that “expedited” delivery is genuinely prompt.
H.B. 540 does not complete the work of modernizing courtroom access. It does establish a sound principle on which further reforms can build: people should have reliable access to the public judicial proceedings that determine their rights and obligations.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277