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 18 Jun 2010 02:23 PM by  MHarrison
R-09-0044 Petition to Amend Rules 46-74, Rules of the Supreme Court
 14 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
ecrowley
Posts:

--
28 Dec 2009 02:41 PM
    R-09-0044

    PETITION TO AMEND RULES 46-74, RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT

    WOULD AMEND THE RULES GOVERNING ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE THE BEST PRACTICES OF THE COLORADO ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM

    Petitioner:
    David K. Byers, Chairman
    Attorney Discipline Task Force
    Administrative Office of the Court
    1501 W. Washington, Ste. 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3301
    dbyers@courts.az.gov

    Original Petition Filed December 28, 2009
    Amended Petition Filed May 7, 2010

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2011.

    Explanation of Attachments:

    Attachment 1: Amended Petition
    Attachment 2: Attachment A to Amended Petition
    Attachment 3: Attachment B to Amended Petition
    Attachment 4: Original Petition
    Attachment 5: Appendix A to Original Petition
    Attachment 6: Appendix B to Original Petition

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2011, Rules 70 and 71.
    Attachments
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    31 Mar 2010 05:20 PM
    R-09-0044 Petition to Amend Rules 46-74, Rules of the Supreme Court

    George M. Papa
    1116 East Kramer Circle
    Mesa, AZ 85203
    (480)844-7356
    Attachments
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    31 Mar 2010 05:58 PM
    R-09-0044 Petition to Amend Rules 46-74, Rules of the Supreme Court

    George M. Papa
    1116 East Kramer Circle
    Mesa, AZ 85203
    (480)844-7356
    Attachments
    jflynn@tucsonlaw.com
    Posts:

    --
    01 Apr 2010 03:31 PM

    Pima County Bar Association
    177 North Church Avenue
    Tucson, AZ 85701-1117

    phone 520.623.8258

    by Joey A. Flynn (SBN 015430)
    2200 E. Speedway Blvd
    Tucson, AZ 85719
    phone: 520.547.7939
    fax: 520.547.7941
    jfynn@tucsonlaw.com
    Attachments
    Mo
    Posts:

    --
    01 Apr 2010 03:48 PM
    To Members of the Discipline Task Force:

    1. If the premise is that the lawyer discipline process takes too much time, it’s not clear why changes are deemed necessary to the current system since it is my understanding that 95% of the time, the Court’s 22 month time frame is being satisfied.

    2. If the proposed system is modeled on Colorado where trials are private, why is Arizona going to deviate from this by having public proceedings?

    3. Informal reprimands along with all other sanctions are available via the state bar’s website, e.g., through publication of the annual report by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. If plea deals are supposed to be incentivized via the offer of a confidential informal reprimand, the incentive is thwarted by publication. This is also a deviation from the Colorado model.

    4. Where are the cost components comparing the cost of the new system to the old system? With the introduction of paid personnel versus volunteer personnel, how much is this going to cost and who is going to pay? Is there a budget? If so, what is it?

    5. Requiring all hearings to be in Phoenix is a hardship, especially with respect to availability of witnesses. For example, it is easier for the PDJ to travel to Pima or Coconino County than it would be for the respondent and all his or her witnesses to make themselves available conceivably all day in Phoenix. And shifting the burden to the respondent to make the case for this is unfair, deleterious to due process and an inadequate remedy.

    6. What metrics are proposed to assess the “success” of the new system? Will surveys or focus groups of average Arizona lawyers be conducted post-implementation? And at what future point in time will this determination be made? Given that lawyers-at-large weren’t included on the task force and that public members are going to have an enhanced presence going forward via the Disciplinary Commission, at what point will a state bar’s members assessment be given more substantive weight beyond an open “public comment” period?

    7. Elimination of proportionality arguments is grossly unfair and contra to the value courts have historically given to precedent. This is inexplicable.

    8. Given the great deal of power being entrusted to the PDJ, what accountability and assessment provisions are set to grade job performance other than an amorphous service at the pleasure of the court?

    Very truly yours,

    Mauricio R. Hernandez
    P.O. Box 7347
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    Bar No. 020181



    April 1, 2010
    MHarrison
    Posts:

    --
    01 Apr 2010 06:20 PM
    Please see attached Comments re Petition to Amend Rules 46-74, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court

    Filed by:
    Mark I. Harrison, Bar No. 1226
    Ralph W. Adams, Bar No. 015599
    Karen A. Clark, Bar No. 012665
    Nancy A. Greenlee, Bar No. 010892
    Denise M. Quinterri, Bar No. 020637
    Mark D. Rubin, Bar No. 007092
    Lynda C. Shely, Bar No. 015549
    Donald Wilson, Jr., Bar No. 05205

    c/o Mark I. Harrison
    Osborn Maledon
    2929 N. Central Suite 2100
    P.O. Box 36379
    Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379
    602-640-9324
    mharrison@omlaw.com
    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    02 Apr 2010 01:32 PM
    The First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc.
    c/o Daniel C. Barr, Esq.
    Perkins Coie Brown & Bain P.A.
    2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
    Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
    Telephone: 602.351.8000
    Facsimile: 602.648.7000
    dbarr@perkinscoie.com
    Bar No. 010149

    Comment of the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc. with Regard to Proposed New Supreme Court Rule 49(a)(2)(C)
    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    02 Apr 2010 02:02 PM
    RICHARD A. ALCORN, ESQ.
    ALCORN LAW OFFICES
    2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    (602) 486-2537
    alcornlaw@yahoo.com
    State Bar No. 006657
    Attachments
    LERLO
    Posts:

    --
    04 May 2010 01:52 PM
    Errol H. Shifman
    16751 E. Last Trail Dr.
    Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
    eshifman@hotmail.com

    Please consider a substantive amendment to Rule 71 as long as the rules are being amended. Rule 71 deals with "Expungement" however no expungement is really accomplished because the taint of an inquiry or frivolous complaint still lingers. A brief scenario will show the reason for my comment:

    An "inquiry" is lodged with the Bar (the Bar termed it an "inquiry" and not a complaint) regarding the act of an attorney drafting proposed statutes. This "inquiry" was summarily dismissed by the Bar without investigation and the Bar further explained that even had it been investigated it could never have risen to an ethical infraction.

    As Rule 71 stands now, the matter has been "expunged" per the Bar definition but the attorney for the rest of their life on any job application or other inquiry has to say that they were the subject of a Bar complaint. This is extremely unfair and unfortunately the taint of a complaint lingers and the bell cannot be unrung.

    The dictionary definition of expunge is:
    1 : to strike out, obliterate, or mark for deletion
    2 : to efface completely : destroy
    3 : to eliminate (as a memory) from one's consciousness

    If the bar feels a matter is worthy of expungement then let's really expunge it and efface it completely. In the above scenario this frivolous "inquiry" should not taint this attorney for the rest of their career and they should not have to mention it. The current explanation that an attorney must give, that their complaint has been expunged by the Bar and no adverse inference shall be drawn from it, leaves a bad taste and does not satisfy the protection of expungement.

    Perhaps for complaints that would have or could have amounted to an ethical violation expungement is not appropriate. Perhaps there are catagories of inquiries or complaints that require different treatment but to paint them all with the same broad brush, as the current rule does, unfairly stigmatizes ethical attorneys and lumps them in with the those that have had possible ethical violations.

    My proposal is to amend section (d) of Rule 71 to read:

    (d) Effect of Expungement. After a file has been expunged, any response by the committee or state bar to an inquiry requiring a reference to the matter shall state THAT NO SUCH MATTER EXISTS. The respondent may answer any inquiry requiring a reference to the matter BY SAYING THAT NO COMPLAINT EXISTS.

    jflynn@tucsonlaw.com
    Posts:

    --
    19 May 2010 08:23 PM
    Comments to the Amended Task Force Petition, attached.

    Pima County Bar Association
    177 North Church Avenue
    Tucson, AZ 85701-1117

    phone 520.623.8258

    by Joey A. Flynn (SBN 015430)
    2200 E. Speedway Blvd
    Tucson, AZ 85719
    phone: 520.547.7939
    fax: 520.547.7941
    jfynn@tucsonlaw.com
    Attachments
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    10 Jun 2010 12:42 PM
    Committee on Examinations
    Jeffrey Messing, Co-Chair
    Theodore Campagnolo, Co-Chair
    1501 W. Washington Street
    Suite 104
    Phoenix, AZ 85007-3222
    (602)452-3971
    Attachments
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    10 Jun 2010 12:46 PM
    Committee On Character and Fitness
    David F. Gaona, Chair
    1501 W. Washngton Street
    Suite 104
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3971
    Attachments
    MHarrison
    Posts:

    --
    11 Jun 2010 01:03 PM
    Please see attached Comment on Attorney Discipline Task Force's Petition to Amend Rules 46-74, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.

    Filed by:
    Mark I. Harrison, Bar No. 001226
    Ralph W. Adams, Bar No. 015599
    Karen A. Clark, Bar No. 012665
    Nancy A. Greenlee, Bar No. 010892
    Denise M. Quinterri, Bar No. 020637
    Mark D. Rubin, Bar No. 007092
    Lynda C. Shely, Bar No. 015549
    Donald Wilson, Jr., Bar No. 005205

    c/o Mark I. Harrison
    Osborn Maledon
    2929 N. Central Suite 2100
    P.O. Box 36379
    Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379
    602-640-9324
    mharrison@omlaw.com
    Attachments
    Denise Quinterri
    Posts:

    --
    11 Jun 2010 10:13 PM
    Denise M. Quinterri
    Bar No. 020637
    The Law Office of Denise M. Quinterri, PLLC
    4747 E. Elliot Rd. #29-210
    Phoenix, AZ 85044
    dmq@azethicslaw.com

    Attachments
    MHarrison
    Posts:

    --
    18 Jun 2010 02:23 PM


    Mark I. Harrison, Bar No. 001226
    Ralph W. Adams, Bar No. 015599
    Karen A. Clark, Bar No. 012665
    Nancy A. Greenlee, Bar No. 010892
    Denise M. Quinterri, Bar No. 020637
    Mark D. Rubin, Bar No. 007092
    Donald Wilson, Jr., Bar No. 005205

    c/o Mark I. Harrison
    Osborn Maledon
    2929 N. Central Suite 2100
    P.O. Box 36379
    Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379
    602-640-9324
    mharrison@omlaw.com

    Supplemental Comments
    Attachments
    Topic is locked