Jeremy Claridge
3429 SW Moundview Dr.
Topeka, KS 66614
Phone: 785-228-1021
E-Mail:
[email protected] 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