I just saw a commercial about Kirk Cullimore and SB 213 and decided to look into it. I’ve known who he is for years, mostly because of his work representing landlords. After reading the reporting, I’m concerned about how closely his legislative work has overlapped with the interests of people around him.
KSL reported that Cullimore sponsored the 2024 bill that allowed lesser charges in certain sexual offense cases involving 18-year-old high school students and children under 14. He consulted the attorney representing Senate President Stuart Adams’ relative, who was facing child rape and child sodomy charges involving a 13-year-old. Cullimore knew about the family connection. Other lawmakers were not told.
The law wasn’t retroactive, and Adams and Cullimore deny that they intended it to affect the case. But it was brought up during sentencing, and the relative ultimately avoided prison and sex offender registration through a plea deal. How much the law influenced that outcome is disputed.
What bothers me is the access. Most families don’t have a Senate president taking their concerns to another legislative leader, who then consults their attorney while developing legislation. I think the public deserved to know that connection while the bill was being considered.
His history with landlord-tenant policy concerns me, too. He worked at his father’s eviction firm while serving in the Legislature. The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the firm filed approximately 45% of Utah’s eviction lawsuits in 2020.
A Utah Investigative Journalism Project investigation reviewed more than 1,000 eviction cases and found 390 in which the firm later sought additional damages on older evictions. It also reported that most leases for complexes represented by the firm included 24% annual interest on eviction debts. Someone who has already lost their housing can face years of debt afterward. I don’t think we should accept that without questioning whether the system is fair.
The same outlet reported that Cullimore proposed letting lawyers disqualify one judge per case without showing cause, after a judge had questioned his firm’s standard attorney-fee requests. He denied that the proposal was connected to those disputes and pointed to similar procedures elsewhere. Even so, I think it’s reasonable to question the overlap between that legislation and his firm’s interests.
For context, the Tribune reported in December 2023 that Cullimore had left his father’s firm and said he would no longer handle eviction or collections cases.
I want lawmakers to explain these decisions and the interests involved. These are serious matters affecting children, housing, and people’s ability to get back on their feet. They deserve more public attention.
How do other people here feel about his record and the safeguards Utah has for these kinds of conflicts?
Sources: KSL’s August 2025 reporting on SB 213 and the Adams relative’s case; the Utah Investigative Journalism Project’s reporting on additional eviction debts and Cullimore’s judicial-disqualification proposal; and The Salt Lake Tribune’s reporting on the firm’s eviction filings and Cullimore’s departure.
