Brent E. Johnson

Attorney in Salt Lake City, UT
Law Clerk to: the Hon. Bailey Brown, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit; Aldon J. Anderson, American Inns of Court.

Areas of Law

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Business Litigation
  • Contract Litigation
  • Corporate Litigation
  • Complex and Multi-District Litigation
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Government Contracts
  • False Advertising
  • Antitrust
  • Unfair Competition
  • Software Copyright
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Products Liability Defense
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation
  • Trademark Infringement
  • Trade Dress


Overall Client Rating

in Bankruptcy
5.0 out of 5.0

Communication Ability
Quality of Service
Value for Money

  • Data based on 1 reviews
  • Recommended by 1 Client
  • Last reviewed on 08/31/10
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.
Are you a former client?  Submit a review

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1988, California and U.S. District Court, Central District of California
1992, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
1996, Utah, U.S. District Court, District of Utah

Law School Attended

University of Michigan
Class of 1987

University Attended

Brigham Young University
Class of 1984
cum laude

Birth Information

Born in 1961
Lynwood, CA, 1961



Associations & Memberships

Federal Bar Association; Defense Research Institute; Utah Defense Lawyers Association.

Contact Information




Send email to Brent E. Johnson

Office Information
Brent E. Johnson
 222 S. Main Street, Suite 2200,
Salt Lake City, UT 84101


Holland & Hart LLP (Salt Lake City, Utah)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.