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 30 Jun 2015 06:47 PM by  Bennett14
R-15-0022 Petition to Amend Rule 38(d), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court
 3 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Bennett14
Posts:

--
10 Jan 2015 05:34 PM
    R-15-0022

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

    Would allow students who have completed the equivalent of two semesters instead of three to be eligible for limited practice certification


    Petitioner:
    Paul D. Bennett
    University of Arizona,
    James E. Rogers College of Law
    1145 N. Mountain Ave.
    Tucson, AZ 85719
    Phone: (520) 626-5245
    FAX: (520) 626-5233
    E-mail: bennett@email.arizona.edu

    Filed January 10, 2015.

    Comments due on or before May 20, 2015.

    ADOPTED, effective January 1, 2016.
    Attachments
    AZStateBar
    Posts:

    --
    18 May 2015 09:58 AM
    John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    Telephone: 602-340-7236
    patricia.seguin@staff.azbar.org
    Attachments
    dauber
    Posts:

    --
    19 May 2015 12:52 PM
    M. Robert Dauber
    on behalf of the Clinical Program at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
    Arizona State University
    1100 S. McAllister Dr.
    Tempe, AZ 85257
    480-965-7359
    FAX: 480-965-6839
    bob.dauber@asu.edu
    bar number: 009067


    Attachments
    Bennett14
    Posts:

    --
    30 Jun 2015 06:47 PM
    Paul D. Bennett
    Clinical Professor
    University of Arizona,
    James E. Rogers College of Law
    1145 N. Mountain Ave.
    Tucson, AZ 85719
    Phone: (520) 626-5245
    bennett@law.arizona.edu


    PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO STATE BAR'S COMMENT ON PETITION TO AMEND RULE 38(d), RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT

    Petitioner submits this comment in response to the comment filed by the State Bar of Arizona. Petitioner would like to address several concerns raised by the State Bar.

    The proposed rule change came about after serious thought concerning one dynamic of the new rule allowing law students to take the bar exam in February of their third year. Although not the subject of this petition, February bar availability has had a positive effect on both recent graduate employment and on the law school curriculum. The time frame of the February bar necessitated that law schools create a new kind of curriculum for students returning after taking the exam. At Arizona Law, we have developed (and are continuing to develop) a seven-week curriculum that is both creative and much more practice focused than more traditional law classes. So far, the new curriculum has been well received.

    One side effect of the February bar, however, is that those students (approximately 33 at Arizona Law in 2015) have one fewer semester in which they can participate in a law clinic or an externship under Rule 38 -- while also having one fewer semester to meet many of their other graduation requirements. The petition proposed to reduce the minimum requirement from three semesters to two semesters in order give those students (and others) more opportunity for a live-client, real world experience, under quality supervision, before they graduate from law school.

    Petitioner agrees, wholeheartedly, with the underlying premise of the State Bar response. Students need to be properly educated, supervised and prepared for whatever type of practice their rule 38(d) experience would entail. The State Bar is absolutely correct when it states that students should not be “practicing in areas of law where they are not professionally prepared to do so.” Where the petition disagrees is the implication that one fewer semester of law school will permit unprepared students to practice law to the detriment of the public, their clients and the administration of justice. Rather, a closer look at the actual preparation and supervision of law students should alleviate many of the State Bar’s concerns.

    Preparation and supervision of students, of necessity, is shared between the law schools themselves and the persons supervising certified limited practice students. Some of the conclusions drawn by the State Bar appear to misunderstand or incorrectly interpret how students are actually prepared and supervised.

    1. Minimum standards are not a mandate. Irrespective of classes taken or semesters completed, no law school should certify a student who is not ready for the rigors of a 38(d) experience. Nor should any field supervisor allow a student to handle any task that the student is not prepared to complete competently and ethically. Nothing in the current or the proposed rule requires any prosecutor or other agency or attorney to accept or keep any student who does not meet their agency’s particular prerequisites or practice standards.

    2. One of the State Bar’s valid concerns is, in fact, left untouched by the proposed change. The petition does not seek to eliminate the current requirement that students complete or be currently enrolled in an evidence and professional responsibility class when undertaking Rule 38(d) responsibilities. Arizona Law, for one, offers those courses during both the summer after first year and in the fall of second year. The petition agrees with the State Bar that those courses are fundamental and should continue as a Rule 38(d) requirement.

    3. The State Bar’s comments appear focused almost exclusively on students placed in prosecutors’ offices. For the record, prosecution placements account for approximately only ten percent of the overall clinic and externships placements at Arizona Law in any given year. Arizona Law has clinical programs in Child and Family Law, Veteran’s Advocacy, Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Indigenous People’s Law and Policy, Worker’s Rights, Civil Rights Restoration, Tribal Courts, Will Drafting, International Human Rights in addition to our rigorous Prosecution Clinic. Each of these programs is supervised by hands-on faculty. Each of these programs has a required classroom component. In addition, Arizona Law has external placement in a variety of government and Tribal agencies and courts.

    As to prosecution placements, neither Arizona Law nor ASU Law simply drop students off at prosecutors’ offices and wipe our hands clean. Both law schools have Prosecution Clinics run by experienced faculty. Both Prosecution Clinics have a rigorous classroom component that is an essential part of the Rule 38(d) experience. That class is in addition to any training offered by local prosecutors’ offices. Our experience is that most prosecutors’ offices have well developed training programs for their student interns.

    The State Bar is also concerned that students are not guaranteed to have completed a course in Criminal Procedure before a Rule 38(d) placement. That is not a change from the current rule. There is no Criminal Procedure requirement in Rule 38(d). However, it should be noted that all Arizona Law students have to complete a course in Criminal Procedure during their first year.

    4. Lastly, the State Bar has misinterpreted both the Colorado and California Student Practice Rules. The California rule cited by the by the State Bar states that law students must “have successfully completed one full year of studies (minimum of 270 hours) at a law school.” (my emphasis) Presumably, the 270 hours represents class time. American Bar Association Standards require 15 “50 minute” hours of class time per credit hour. Arizona Law students are required to take far more -- at least 29 credit hours during their first year.

    The Colorado rule cited by the State Bar applies only to students who are not part of a law school clinical program. The two year requirement of C.R.C.P. 205.7 only applies to law school externs, not to students in the law school’s own legal aid clinics such as the Child and Family Clinic that I direct. While the Colorado two- year requirement would likely apply to most Prosecution Clinics where students are placed with County and City Attorneys, it would not apply to all law school clinical programs where services are provided directly.

    Thank you for your kind attention to these comments.

    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of June, 2015.
    ____________________________________
    Paul D. Bennett
    Clinical Professor
    University of Arizona
    James E. Rogers College of Law
    1145 N. Mountain Ave.
    Tucson, AZ 85719
    520 626-5245
    Bennett@law.arizona.edu


    Electronic copy filed with the
    Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court
    this __30th___ day of June, 2015.

    by: ___Paul D. Bennett
    Topic is locked