Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 28 May 2009 01:32 PM by  Jeremy.claridge
R-08-0013 Rule 38(d), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court
 5 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Jeremy.claridge
Posts:

--
28 Apr 2008 11:19 AM
    R-08-0013

    PETITION TO AMEND RULE 38(d), RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT

    TO INCLUDE GRADUATED LAW STUDENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THE BAR EXAMINATION BUT ARE STILL WAITING FOR BAR RESULTS TO PRACTICE LAW UNDER THE SAME EXCEPTION THAT IS AFFORDED TO LAW STUDENTS WHO PRACTICE IN A CLINICAL SETTING OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A LICENSED ATTORNEY WHO IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR.

    Petitioner:
    Jeremy Claridge
    3429 SW Moundview Dr.
    Topeka, KS 66614
    Phone: 785-228-1021
    E-Mail: jeremy.claridge@gmail.com

    Filed April 28, 2008

    REJECTED.

    Attachments
    AZStateBar
    Posts:

    --
    15 May 2009 05:40 PM
    John Furlong
    Bar No. 018356
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th Street, Ste. 200
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    602.252.4804
    Attachments
    pahler
    Posts:

    --
    19 May 2009 04:56 PM
    Paul W Ahler
    Executive Director
    AZ State Bar #005379
    Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council
    3001 West Indian School Rd., Suite 307
    Phoenix, Az. 85017
    (Office) (602) 265-4779
    (cell) (602) 882-0313
    (Fax) (602) 274-4215
    paul.ahler@apaac.az.gov

    Attachments
    Jeremy.claridge
    Posts:

    --
    19 May 2009 11:57 PM
    Jeremy Claridge
    3429 SW Moundview Dr.
    Topeka, KS 66614
    Phone: 785-228-1021
    E-Mail: jeremy.claridge@gmail.com

    The intention of the proposal is to place similarly situated individuals that have graduated from law schools in a different state in the same boat as individuals that have graduated law schools here in Arizona. I had a student license in Kansas that I used when practicing in my school's law clinic. There was no provision for me to work and gain experience here in Arizona while studying for the Arizona bar or subsequent to taking the test while waiting for my law license. I am now licensed and practicing law in Arizona. The proposal would seem moot except that it is going to be a continuing problem for those who follow. I support the proposition made by Paul Ahler of APAAC for a different approach to the rule change. The simple and clear changes proposed by APAAC address the concerns in the State Bar's Comment and outline a better program all together.
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    28 May 2009 11:49 AM
    R-08-0013 Rule 38(d), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court


    Theodore Campagnolo
    Chair, Committee on Examinations
    1501 W. Washington Street, Suite 104
    Phoenix, AZ 85007-3231
    (602)452-3971
    Attachments
    Jeremy.claridge
    Posts:

    --
    28 May 2009 01:32 PM
    Jeremy Claridge
    3429 SW Moundview Dr.
    Topeka, KS 66614
    Phone: 785-228-1021
    E-Mail: jeremy.claridge@gmail.com


    Mr. Theodore Campagnolo raises a valid concern in regards to individuals that cannot pass the Bar Exam on their first, second or even subsequent tries. The intent of the amendment is to place out-of-state law students in the same bed as those who attended law school in-state. The rule 38 license is limited and requires a supervisory attorney to be accountable for the actions and practice of the new practitioner. Even those who fail the bar exam for the first time are theoretically more competent than the second year law student who gets his/her rule 38 approval to practice. The proposed amendment is not a full induction into the Arizona State Bar, but rather a tool that can be used to train up competent lawyers who choose to practice in the great State of Arizona.

    While in Kansas, I practiced under a student license and had many valuable experiences while working in my school’s clinical program. I was disappointed to learn that because I chose to do my student practice in Kansas, I was not able to qualify for rule 38 licensure in Arizona after I graduated. Had I been licensed in Arizona during the summer between my second and third year of law school, I could have returned to Arizona after graduation, found a public office to affiliate with, and continued practicing under the provisions of Rule 38. As things ended up, I shadowed an attorney for 8 weeks and gleaned less experience than I could have if I managed cases by myself under that attorney’s supervision.

    The suggestion made by APAAC through Counsel, Paul Ahler, is a great way for public entities to increase the talent base from which employees are selected. Perhaps the limitation should be only for applicants receiving a letter of good standing from the dean of their college who are affiliating with a public entity and who are within one year of graduating from law school. These qualifications are in the language of the proposed definition of “eligible law student” offered by APAAC. The one year limitation will prevent most multiple test takers from practicing under the rule. Preclusion of those that cannot pass the bar is contemplated in APAAC’S proposed language. After all, if a person fails the bar after their second attempt, they should either focus all of their time studying for try number three or look at doing something else.

    Thank you Committee on Examinations for expressing your concerns.

    Jeremy Claridge

    Topic is locked