Jeremy Jones


Jeremy Jones founded Nelson Jones along with his partners after graduating from one of America’s top 20 juris doctorate programs at the University of Minnesota Law School. Jeremy’s practice focuses on fighting for the rights of clients embroiled in divorce and other family law issues. Jeremy also represents law enforcement and other municipal employees at administrative tribunals throughout Utah, and before the Utah Court of Appeals.



Utah, 2013



Clerked for Presiding Judge Bruce Peterson at the Hennepin County,

Minnesota Family Court-January 2008 - September 2008

Rawson & Goff, February 2011 - December 2011

Mumford Rawson, December 2011 - June 2013

Nelson Jones, PLLC, January 2014 - Present




Hollenbach v. Salt Lake City Civil Service Commission, 2016 UT App 64.

Synopsis: the Salt Lake CSC interpreted its own policy in the most restrictive way possible in order to deny jurisdiction to hear an employee’s administrative appeal. Held: an agency may not interpret its own policies in a manner that is more restrictive than state law. Outcome: the CSC’s decision was reversed and remanded such that the employee’s appeal could be considered on the merits.


Aiono v. Utah Department of Corrections, 2017 UT App 143.

Synopsis: an employee was terminated by the Dep’t of Corrections based on the claim that they had violated policy by not adhering to best practices. Held: agency employees are entitled to rely on agency policy, which cannot be later revised through interpretation by the agency or the Career Service Review Office. Further, the question of whether the employee violated policy is a law-like question subject to review for correctness. Outcome: the employee’s termination was overturned and

the employee was reinstated with back pay.


Palmer v. St. George City Council, St. George Police Department, Et Al., 2018 UT App 94. Synopsis: a police sergeant was suspended for 40 hours without pay for allegedly violating agency policy. The sergeant challenged the suspension and asked that the city provide access to records that would show whether the punishment imposed was proportional and consistent with discipline handed down other employees. The city denied this request. Held: municipal agencies cannot deny employees access to comparative discipline files necessary to challenge disciplinary decisions before appeals boards. Further, the Appeals Board violated the employee’s due process rights by failing to make factual findings that would explain its decision. Outcome: the employee’s suspension was set aside and the case was remanded for a new appeals hearing.