Trevor S. Draegeth
203 E. Brearley Drive,
Oro Valley, AZ 85737
(520) 505-0166
[email protected] Bar Number: 027464
Mr. Held,
Your core argument is both persuasive and pointed, and I support your call for a full repeal. However, I take issue with the "until law school debt is paid" exemption. Firstly, given that the petition suggests that CLE is unnecessary, providing an exemption based only on debt incurred suggests that legal knowledge should somehow be linked to borrowing patterns. I appreciate your attempt to add a "lighter" option to your petition by removing the burden only from the (potentially) most burdened class of attorneys. This attempt is based only on the traditional student, though, as it does not take into account those students who may have postponed attending law school in order to save up the necessary funds to avoid going into debt, or who may have acquired the money from other sources. Additionally, your alternate wording leaves open time-consuming debate about how to define "debt" (Opportunity costs lost while in law school? Savings redirected? Home newly mortgaged? Private debt to family that may not be independently verifiable?).
Your request that Rule 45 be wholly repealed is the superior course. Even if the antiquated concept of a supervised, paternalistic continuing education remains in our state, it need not be mandatory. The free market, with all its potential for disappointed clients going elsewhere (or, in the extreme, malpractice judgments), can and will regulate attorneys and provide for their continuing education while maintaining the quality of the Arizona bar. Malpractice insurers can and will require continuing education, and may become more vigilant in the absence of bar requirements.
Particularly during a deep nationwide and statewide recession, and a state budgetary shortfall, the efforts (and resources) of our bar and Supreme Court would be better spent elsewhere than mandating expensive post-post-graduate schools for attorneys.