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 07 Jul 2016 01:47 PM by  mmeltzer
R-16-0013 Rule 32, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court
 19 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
mmeltzer
New Member
Posts:11 New Member

--
08 Jan 2016 09:24 AM
    R-16-0013

    Petition to Amend Rule 32 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona

    Would amend provisions relating to the State Bar of Arizona's mission and governance

    Petitioner:
    Hon. Rebecca Berch (ret.)
    1501 West Washington Street, Ste. 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    (602) 452-3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    Date of Filing: January 8, 2016

    Comments shall be due according to the following schedule:
    April 1, 2016 Initial comments due
    May 13, 2016 Amended petition, if any, due
    June 10, 2016 Second round of comments due
    July 8, 2016 Petitioner's reply due

    AMENDED PETITION: The attached Amended Petition responds to comments provided during the first comment period. An Appendix to the Amended Petition contains revisions to the proposed Rule 32 amendments.

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2017.
    Attachments
    Aubrey Thomas
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Mar 2016 08:21 AM
    Aubrey L. Thomas (SBN 029446)
    c/o Davis Miles McGuire Gardner, PLLC
    320 N. Leroux St., Suite A
    Flagstaff, AZ 86001
    928-779-1173
    Fax: 877-715-7366
    athomas@davismiles.com

    I want to voice my support in favor of "Option Z." That option results in Coconino County maintaining its present voting district (which includes Apache, Navajo, Coconino, and Mohave counties), which would elect one member to the Board of Governors, as it does now. "Option Z" maintains the equal voting distribution balance that exists currently between Maricopa County seats and non-Maricopa County seats. In my opinion, it is the only option that provides fair representation to a rural county, like Coconino. Because I practice in Coconino County, this is important to me. I think the Board of Governor's proposal would unfairly result in more representation given to Maricopa County lawyers, to the detriment of the rural counties.
    Mohave County Board of Directors
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Mar 2016 10:39 AM
    Lisa S. Bruno, President, Mohave County Bar Association
    730 E. Beale
    Kingman, AZ 86401-5923
    bbglawlisa@frontiernet.net

    On behalf of the Mohave County Bar Board of Directors we hereby submit our support of “Option Z” of this petition. We are in favor of Option Z as it provides us with the same representation we currently have. The alternative option would dilute the current representation we have, which would in turn stifle the Northern Arizona voices on the Board. Furthermore, the alternative option shifts even more power to Maricopa County because Maricopa’s proportionate seats on the Board will increase to out-number the outlying counties by two (2) seats. The current representation, which is consistent with Option Z, has Maricopa’s elected seats equal to those held by other counties, which we support.

    Option Z better preserves the balance of interests between Maricopa attorneys and those in other counties. The voice of the rural attorneys should be respected and represented equally with those that practice in Phoenix.
    Respectfully,
    Lisa S. Bruno, President, Mohave County Bar Association
    Jimmie Smith
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Mar 2016 04:18 PM
    Jimmie D. Smith
    State Bar #2661
    221 S. 2nd Avenue
    Yuma, AZ 85364
    Ph: 928-783-7809
    jimmie.smith@azbar.org

    The Proposals attempt to address problems that simply do not exist.
    Example #1: Proposal to Reduce the Size of the State Bar Board of Governors (B.O.G.)
    There is no demonstrated problem with the existing size of the Board. There is no expense to the Bar. B.O.G. members are not paid. There is no food cost. Even lunches for B.O.G. members at monthly Board Meetings were discontinued some time ago as a cost saving measure.
    It should also be noted that the American Bar Association recently increased the size of its Board of Governors to provide for more representation.

    Example #2: Proposal for Redistricting Rural Board Districts.
    This proposal proposes consolidation of Existing Rural Board Districts which will result in fewer Rural B.O.G. members. This is an attempt to answer the repeated calls of Maricopa County for increased representation (More Members) on the B.O.G. The argument that continues to be made is: It is too difficult to be elected to the B.O.G. in Maricopa County and too easy to be elected to the B.O.G. in Rural Counties. The Majority of the Board is made up of Elected and Appointed Members from Maricopa County but if there is merit to this argument, then additional elected members from Maricopa County could be added. For example if Yuma & La Paz Counties are consolidated with Yavapai County (as proposed) Constituent Services provided by Rural B.O.G. members is totally overlooked. Rural B.O.G. members are the local personal point of contact for Local Attorneys, the Public, the local media and the Local Bar Association on issues concerning the State Bar. Rural Board Members are expected to attend all Local Bar Association Meetings. Prescott is 250+ miles from Yuma. It is doubtful that an elected member of the B.O.G. would be able to assist members, the media, the Public or a local bar association which is 250 miles away.

    Example #3: Term Limits & Prohibition of Past Presidents from continuing service on the B.O.G.
    It takes several years to fully understand the operations and issues in the State Bar. B.O.G. members who continue to serve on the B.O.G. provide very important input on issues that come before the board time and time again. The Arizona Legislature might be a good example of how Term Limits are destructive rather than constructive.
    The proposal to prohibit past State Bar Presidents from continued service on the B.O.G. is not a solution for anything. If the membership desires to elect a past State Bar President as their Representative to the State Bar, they should be allowed to do so. Also a past State Bar President has a large scope of training and knowledge concerning the Bar and issues before the B.O.G.
    To Close, two oft quoted sayings are in order: [1] If it is not broke don’t fix it and [2] this is a solution searching for a problem.
    BFuruya
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    31 Mar 2016 05:24 PM
    Brian Y. Furuya
    State Bar # 025486
    110 E. Cherry Ave.
    Flagstaff, AZ 86001
    928-679-8241
    brianfuruya@gmail.com

    Speaking on my own behalf, I wish to voice my support of "Option Z" under this petition.

    Practicing law in Arizona's rural areas is unique and nuanced. Those of us who live and provide legal services within these rural communities know that many of our challenges are not those faced by others in more urban areas. Among the many unique issue that faces us, one of the most important is access to justice for rural communities. Many of our state's rural populations are underserved with regard to legal services. Providing services to these underserved populations poses one of the most difficult and complicated barriers to increasing access to justice. Being charged with considering and developing policies that better facilitate access to justice, our State Bar remains a critical player in addressing this problem. In order to continue to seriously address access to justice, rural communities must have a voice in the dialogue that is as strong and diverse as are the issues that face them. Balance between urban and rural perspectives is very important and should be protected. This was understood by those who created the present composition of the State Bar's Board of Governors. Because the present composition of the Board does a superior job of striking the right balance between proportionality and diversity, I believe that the composition of the Board should not be changed at all. In this sense, I agree that changes to the Board's composition are neither truly necessary, nor desirable.

    However, if the Court is inclined to reduce the number of seats on the Board, the balance between rural and urban perspectives should not be upset in the process. Thus, if a change must be made, between the two proposals outlined in the R-16-0013 Rule Change Petition, "Option Z" better maintains this balance.

    Respectfully,
    Brian Y. Furuya
    Mo
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 09:33 AM
    Mauricio R. Hernandez
    State Bar #02821
    P.O. Box 7347
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    Ph: 623-363-2649
    mo@lawmrh.com
    Attachments
    Paul Avelar
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 12:16 PM
    Paul V. Avelar (AZ Bar No. 023078)
    Senior Attorney
    Institute for Justice
    398 S Mill Avenue Ste 301
    Tempe, AZ 85281
    Phone: (480) 557-8300
    Fax: (480) 557-8305
    http://www.ij.org/arizona

    I had the honor of serving on the Supreme Court’s Task Force on the Review of the Role and Governance Structure of the State Bar of Arizona, whence this proposed rule change originated. As a member of the Task Force, I have previously explained my agreements with and objections to the proposed rule changes at great length. I submit them here again to ensure they are a part of the record.

    Stated succinctly, and as explained more fully in the attached, these proposed reforms are insufficient because they attempt to keep in place the integrated and mandatory State Bar, along with its governing board, which consists mostly of lawyers. Integrated bar associations are dangerous because they have an inherent conflict of interest: They are both a regulator of and “trade association” for lawyers. This threatens “capture” of regulatory powers for the benefit of lawyers and to the detriment of the public. This threat is greatly exacerbated when—as in Arizona—lawyers elect a controlling number of other lawyers to govern the regulatory board. In addition, mandatory bars also threaten the First Amendment rights of attorney members, as explained by Keller v. State Bar of California and related cases.

    The continuation of the State Bar in its current form—an integrated and mandatory bar under the governance of a lawyer-elected board—is particularly unwarranted because the current form of the “integrated” bar does nothing to protect the public. The Supreme Court has largely de-integrated the State Bar for purposes of its core public-protection regulatory responsibilities, such as admissions, discipline, client protection funds, and the like. These functions are now in the hands of independent committees and boards created by the Supreme Court and professional staff that, while part of the State Bar, are not actually under the control of the Board of Governors. Because these public-protection functions are already largely split off, the only justification for the mandatory bar under Keller has been undermined. Reorganizing the State Bar as a purely regulatory agency, tasked only with protecting the public would therefore both comply with Keller and finish the job the Supreme Court has already started.

    Given that many states regulate lawyers to protect the public without an integrated and mandatory bar, the inherent threats attendant to integrated and mandatory bar associations, and the steps the Supreme Court has already taken to de-integrate the State Bar, the continuation of the State Bar as a mandatory bar cannot be justified.
    Attachments
    Bryan B. Chambers
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 04:58 PM
    Hon. Bryan B. Chambers
    Gila County Superior Court
    1400 E. Ash
    Globe, AZ 85501
    bryan.chambers@azbar.org

    Attached please find a Comment by 54 members of the State Bar of Arizona from Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Cochise Counties opposing any plan that would consolidate Districts 3 and 4 with Pinal County.
    Attachments
    Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D.
    New Member
    Posts:6 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 05:13 PM
    Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D.
    480-275-7054
    kjkrug@cox.net

    I wholeheartedly agree with Mo Hernandez and other critics of Arizona's mandatory state Bar. So I won't repeat what they said. I have been a member of the Texas Bar for 22 years and, unlike the ASB, Texas provides real services to their members. The TSB is totally transparent about what they do with our bar dues. Somebody who knows enough law to do it screens grievances before burdening the lawyers with responding to crazy people the lawyers never represented. They do not harass the lawyers with meritless grievances. They do not, to the best of my knowledge, protect the judiciary from consequences for criminal and unethical behavior. There is no "bar court" internal to the Supreme Court/Bar -- lawyers charged with disciplinary infractions, if they get to trial, are tried in a regular civil court. Texas has a real member's assistance program that is fully funded, in excess of $300,000, with funds to get treatment for lawyers who cannot afford it, and confidentiality guarantees, like prosecuting any TLAP volunteer who outs a lawyers with mental health or substance abuse problems. Here your attendance at MAP, and there is not MAP to attend, shows up in published disciplinary orders. The CLEs in Texas are world class. The Arizona State Bar is truly awful compared to the Texas State Bar.

    Texas manages to protect its members and the public both. So it is possible to do that.

    No transparency:
    The first ASB budget I saw was 2 pages. Since then, it has apparently been amended to include maybe 21 somewhat redundant pages. The last TSB budget I saw was 323 pages plus copious exhibits. While the Arizona State Bar says that they are transparent, they refuse to divulge any information to the members.

    A trade union that abuses its own members?
    Failure to properly screen bar complaints, while asking lawyers to respond to non-specific and possibly irrational allegations, is a due process violation, according to the ABA. Proceeding on meritless bar complaints gives the appearance of protecting the public, without actually doing anything for the public. I have a spotless ethics record, and was a very well respected lawyer in Texas. I even did the second DNA exoneration in Texas. The Arizona State Bar has treated me like garbage. 12 business days after I testified before the House, the Arizona State Bar elected to proceed against me on a bar complaint that is about 400 pages of madness, from a vindictive crazy person who I never represented. When I testified in front of the Senate that the ASB had elected to do this in a letter from their general counsel dated December 4, 2015, stating twice that this had nothing to do with my testimony, the members present literally gasped. Last week I got a hand-couriered letter from John Furlong, asking me to waive confidentiality so he could confuse the members of the Senate about who did what when, when the only relevant fact is the date the ASB elected to proceed against me, whether they did it themselves or forwarded the matter to another arm of the Supreme Court for prosecution, like that is an actual ethical safeguard. As I told John, the last time a judge said in open court that he was not going to make a decision due to "political considerations," he made the wrong decision, sent an innocent woman to prison, and it took another 10 years to get the wrongful conviction reversed.

    The crimes and ethical violations I reported in 2012:
    Strangely, the last time I had any dealing with the ASB it involved John Furlong. I reported the Unauthorized Practice of Law and grant fraud by the Maricopa County Superior Court to the ASB, who said I had to do it or I could be an accessory after the fact. It seems idiotic that lawyers would conspire to commit UPL, but they did it. UPL is a felony in Texas. I reported it to the Chief Justice, who did not tell me that Douglas Rayes was her former law partner. She sent me a letter from chief staff counsel Ellen Crowley acknowledging receipt of my report of this matter, denying that a non-lawyer claiming my credentials in a grant request was a crime, and telling me that Dave Byers was going to handle it. Dave Byers covered the whole thing up by changing the permissible uses of CPAF grant funds and changing the ersatz lawyer's title on the Supreme Court website to "Capital Litigation Law Clerk." I lost my job and, as my attorney/neighbor told me the following day, I would never get another job in Maricopa County. Strangely, in UPL counsel's notes, it mentions at the bottom conferring with Judge Rayes, Dave Byers, and John Furlong about what to do about this "whistleblower." Judge Rayes, who had formerly said to me that the non-lawyer was a great lawyer and a wonderful person, sent a letter to the ASB crafted to leave one with the impression that he barely knew who the non-lawyer was. I still have every one of these documents.

    So justice was not served, no members of the public were protected, the grant funds were not returned, nobody within the judiciary was prosecuted or reprimanded -- which leads me to the conclusion that the ASB cares nothing about the lawyers and members of the public, and everything about protecting the judiciary and itself. Geoffrey Trachtenberg told me recently that they cannot do anything the Supreme Court does not tell them to do. I do not know if that is true or not. But it is clear that the courts and the bar here act as a unit that does not protect the public, but protects the judiciary. I used to be the deputy chief prosecutor for the state of Texas under then Attorney General John Cornyn. So I know a crime when I see it. I was board certified in criminal law and criminal appeals. I was recently appointed to argue two cases, one a death penalty case, for a sick lawyer, with only a week to prepare. I was thanked on the record by the very gracious Chief Justice. Here I can't even get and entry level job to support my Vietnam vet/retired Southwest pilot's retirement income.

    In short, the Arizona State Bar is like a diseased appendix, a vestigial organ that serves no real purpose and needs to go.

    There's more, but I've got to run.

    Respectfully, Karyl Krug
    State Bar of Arizona
    New Member
    Posts:26 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 06:02 PM
    John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    602-3407236
    patricia.seguin@staff.azbar.org
    Attachments
    Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D.
    New Member
    Posts:6 New Member

    --
    01 Apr 2016 10:21 PM
    Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D.
    480-275-7054
    kjkrug@cox.net

    I completely agree with Mo Hernandez. I'm a member of both the Texas (22 years) and Arizona (4 years) bars. My previous comment was apparently zapped -- there go those cherished First Amendment rights again. Which is sad because much of what I said were things I testified about before the Arizona House and Senate.

    Texas is a state of 22,000,000 people and 254 counties. There are 16 state courts of appeals and 4 federal districts. I don't know what the Arizona State Bar is "nationally recognized" for. I think that is something the ASB is telling itself. In my years of traveling to the ABA in Washington, D.C., and my decades as a Texas lawyer, I heard exactly nothing about the Arizona State Bar. There are many constitutional firsts from Arizona, like Miranda, Tison, Edwards, Ring -- none of it particularly commendable. A bunch of death sentences had to be reversed because Arizona kept applying the old, rejected "nexus" requirement to punishment evidence. Arizona has the same population as Houston metro, 3 state courts of appeal and one federal court, on top of being the youngest of the lower 48 states, and jurisprudence consistent with its relative youth.

    After obtaining my license here, I learned that some of the ASB's programs were ephemeral. For example, the ASB's Member Assistance Program is almost non-existent. $50 were spent on the program in the 2013-14 biennium, compared with the more than $300,000 spent for the Texas Lawyers' Assistance Program, for which I volunteered for many years. One of my close friends was a featured speaker at a 1999 Arizona State Bar CLE on members' assistance. I reviewed the course materials, and they are light years ahead of what the Bar calls MAP now. I don't understand how this could have happened.

    The mandatory Arizona State Bar serves neither the members nor the public. A thriving members' assistance program, for example, would be good for the public and the lawyers. Unimpaired lawyers are better lawyers. In Texas, these services are well-funded and truly confidential. It is a felony to expose a lawyer enrolled in TLAP. Here, the website says AMAP is confidential, but failure to complete this non-existent program is cited in disciplinary opinions. It is a very bad situation. One woman at the AZ Bar runs 5 alleged programs for the lawyers.

    So restructuring AZ Bar governance is an exercise in futility tantamount to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. There are no real programs for lawyers. Serving lawyers with insufficiently screened bar complaints helps no one, but it certainly makes the ASB look like it is doing something for the public, while making lawyers' lives unnecessarily miserable. The mandatory bar needs to become voluntary. Then, if they are as great as the members are involuntarily paying them and their lobbyists to say they are, lawyers will be lining up to join.

    It might also help if they told the lawyers how bar dues are being spent. Texas's last budget that I looked at was 323 pages. Plus tables and such. Telling AZ lawyers that how the Bar spends their money is none of the members' business. It looks like the AZ Bar is spending a ton of money to fight its captive members yearning to be free, so that half a dozen people can hang on to their power and their six-figure salaries. Again, no one is helped, and many legislators know that what they are being told by AZ Bar reps is untrue. There are not enough re-organizational rules in the world to change that.
    mmeltzer
    New Member
    Posts:11 New Member

    --
    13 May 2016 08:40 AM
    Petitioner:
    Hon. Rebecca Berch (ret.)
    1501 West Washington Street, Ste. 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    (602) 452-3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    The attached Amended Petition responds to comments provided during the first comment period. An Appendix to the Amended Petition contains revisions to the proposed Rule 32 amendments.
    Attachments
    Linda Koschney
    New Member
    Posts:43 New Member

    --
    17 May 2016 09:49 AM
    Dr. Richard W. Morris, J.D., Ph.D.
    16845 N. 29th Avenue., #245
    Phoenix, AZ 85053-3053

    I am a retired attorney. Previously an active member of the State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of California for close to 50 years, and of the United Kingdom of England and Wales. I completely agree with Mo Hernandez, Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D. and Paul V. Avelar, Senior Attorney for the Institute for Justice. I adopt their statements.
    Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D.
    New Member
    Posts:6 New Member

    --
    19 May 2016 04:50 PM

    Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D.
    12149 N 134th Way
    Scottsdale, AZ 85259-3637
    Ph: 480-275-7054
    kjkrug@cox.net


    Contrary to representations by everybody in power at the Arizona State Bar, the ASB is neither transparent nor Keller compliant.

    This amended petition is a belated admission, after HB 2221 was defeated, that the Arizona State Bar is not Keller compliant, or at least that reasonable minds could differ, after every single person in power at the Bar repeatedly took the conclusory position most advantageous to themselves.

    Unfortunately, the Arizona State Bar is like the Hotel California: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. One retiree keeps testifying that John Phelps threatened him with a bar complaint because the guy kept complaining about the amount of his retiree bar dues. Retiree bar dues? Is the Arizona State Bar so hard up for money that they need a chunk of that guy’s social security under threat of post-retirement bar discipline?

    Why does policing lawyers in a state of 6 million people cost so much more than it does in a state of 22,000,000 people?

    Arizona Texas

    Regular Bar Dues 3 years or more:

    $690 $235 *

    Inactive

    $435 $50

    Retired

    $415 $0

    If you are currently practicing in Texas, you pay an additional $65 legal services fee. An additional licensing tax has been repealed.

    Transparency means never having to ask what is going on.

    When taking his victory lap after the defeat of HB 2221 by a handful of votes, Geoffrey Trachtenberg abused the English language by declaring that the ASB is fully transparent. Nonsense. In another on-line venue, Trachtenberg told one Arizona lawyer that she would need a “FOIA-type” (sic) request to get any financial information, that the Arizona State Bar is not a governmental entity (note: so a FOIA or similar request is totally inapplicable), that it would require an extra expenditure of our Bar dues to secure even a tiny bit of transparency, but that all she had to do was ask!

    The burden is always put on the individual lawyers and not the ASB, whether it’s getting basic information about what the Bar is doing with our money, or getting adequate notice in a disciplinary proceeding.

    Arizona lawyers already pay extra for everything. Do we have to pay extra for even alleged transparency? Why are lawyers who ask for transparency shamed for wasting bar monies for requesting that transparency? That is a problem.

    This Bar’s position echoes the argument the California State Bar made in Keller, which the United States Supreme Court rejected: that detailed information of the costs of political activities would be too burdensome to produce or sort out, despite the fact that the California State Bar already produced a detailed state bar budget, as does the Texas State Bar.

    As of this writing, I still do not know how the ASB spends our bar dues, and who, if anyone, does know. 2 to 12 pages of broad categories of expenditures does not cut it when other states are publishing hundreds of pages. Somebody must know how much money is spent for what. I hope.

    Since the Arizona State Bar produces no such published, detailed budget, merely opting out of certain activities will not make this bar Keller compliant. Only an opt-in option will make this Bar Keller compliant.

    Half measures avail us nothing: Opting out of political activities is not an option, as every US Supreme Court opinion on that topic regarding unions has said. The Arizona State Bar additionally ignores Keller’s “germaneness” analysis.

    When I briefly mentioned to the Senate, in my whole 120 seconds of testimony, the 400 page grievance I had received since my House testimony, John Furlong, Bar Counsel, had a letter hand-couriered to me at my home in Scottsdale, mischaracterizing my statement to the legislature (it’s on videotape), and asking me to waive confidentiality in an ongoing bar complaint on which I was not yet represented, so he could present “select facts” of the Bar complaint to the Senate.

    I doubt he meant to reveal the entire 400 page undifferentiated pile of papers, which includes allegations (including non-enumerated sub-allegations) that I am a “Republican hater,” that I ran on the same ticket as Hillary Clinton when I ran for a bench in Texas eight years ago, or that I had something to do with the recall of Senator Pearce from the Senate a whole year before I moved to Arizona.

    I am guessing that no rational lawyer would be in favor of paying for that ridiculous, unethical, and politically motivated letter. How is a request to reveal “selected (and therefore misleading) facts” about that grievance germane to the regulation of lawyers or the protection of the public?

    Obviously the Bar’s position is going to be that that level of transparency is impossible, because this Bar chooses not to be transparent, thanks to the Arizona Supreme Court deciding that court rules override the kind of accountability to which other governmental entities are subject. Separation of powers should not totally eliminate checks and balances. Remember those?

    How do you account for the cost of one or two pages of Bar stationary, Mr. Furlong’s time reviewing the bar complaint the Bar is supposed to be conflicted out of, and typing that letter, and the bar courier’s time traveling almost all the way to Fountain Hills and back? That is, as Trachtenberg pointed out to the lawyer audacious to enough to ask for some information, kind of a pain.

    But that is, or should be, the Bar’s problem. There is no way for bar members to “opt out” of political activities they will never even know about unless a target lawyer like me comes forward: an inappropriate political letter here, false information presented to the Arizona legislature there, a thousand little things we would never agree to or wish to fund, and which only benefits bar leaders.

    A fine example of Bar and Court accountability in the disciplinary realm.

    I saw the ASB’s many moving CLEs on the lessons of the Holocaust, about the evil that is unleashed when lawyers in the judiciary don’t speak up about crimes within the judiciary. I fell for it. I was mesmerized and thrilled that the Bar here aspired to that level of integrity, and I believed her. To make this all the more upsetting, my longtime friend and neighbor in Austin, Walter Meyer, who has since passed, was featured in one of these presentations.

    As I said before, after I reported UPL and grant fraud within the judiciary, the former Chief Justice turned this matter over to Dave Byers.

    The CPAF (Case Processing Assistance Fund), funded with money granted to the Arizona Supreme Court by statute, ARS 41-2041 D.8., was used to fund our jobs. Dave Byers changed the permissible uses of the CPAF grants funds, AFTER I reported the grant fraud, from the Capital Litigation Staff Attorneys assistance project to the “death penalty law clerk assistance project.” Apparently it is legal for him to do that any time he wants to, he would doubtless say in the interest of “transparency,” but covering up a crime is never okay. The taxpayers are the ultimate victims, but UPL counsel Ward Parker told me, if the Arizona Supreme Court (who he designated as the victim) doesn’t care, then why should I?

    At the bottom of UPL counsel Ward Parker’s cryptic notes is a notation that John Furlong, Bar Counsel, told Parker not to put anything in writing but to contact Judge Rayes, who is now a federal judge after downplaying in writing how well he knew the lawyer committing UPL, and Dave Byers, who orchestrated the ex post facto cover-up with, I guess, the full approval of the Chief Justice to whom I had poured out my heart.

    Dave Byers, according to the Court’s position paper on the administration of CPAF grant funds, has to account to Dave Byers for these expenditures and rule changes. There’s a paper on how this grant fund works available on the internet, which you should read yourself in case I have misunderstood any part of it.

    Five years of UPL in death penalty cases was wiped out with the stroke of a pen. Coincidentally, Keller mentions that the prosecution of UPL is a legitimate bar function. But apparently neither the Arizona Bar nor the Arizona Supreme Court that oversees all these matters, or perhaps just a few bad apples therein, can be trusted to transparently or fairly handle necessary court functions or bar functions.

    The legislature needs to know that telling the courts “do what you think necessary with these funds” within certain broad parameters is not adequate to protect the public, not to mention unsuspecting judges, defense lawyers at CLEs, or defendants looking at a sentence of death.

    You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

    The Bar doesn’t care that I am out tens of thousands of dollars in lost wages and attorney’s fees, when I did nothing wrong and have a 23 year spotless ethics record. All I wanted to do is walk away and get another job in my area of expertise; even an entry level job would have been fine, because I’m 56 year old and too disabled by arthritis in my spine to start a new practice.

    And I get to pay $690 for that privilege. And I can never get out from under the thumb of the Arizona State Bar, ever.

    A smarter group of miscreants would have just let me walk away, get another job, and get on with my life. I didn’t want to spend my final productive years testifying in front of the Arizona legislature, or fighting off Bar attempts to discredit me in a pro bono case in which no party was harmed. I don’t want to spend time trying to make this bar more accountable or better than it is. I never wanted any of this. This is not fun.

    At least $350,000 in lost wages and attorneys’ fees is the going price for an Arizona attorney’s exercise of her First Amendment rights, when it might potentially cause embarrassment or problems for the bench and bar. They don’t care that my husband is a Vietnam veteran who risked his life for his country flying C-141s, a large target, through the Fall of Saigon until Ho Chi Minh blew up the airport. My husband stands and is cheered at many a Diamondbacks game and other public events. The Bar does not care about him and his financial well being. My attorney’s fees are coming out of his retirement funds. I’m also infuriated that my old friend and Holocaust survivor, Walter Meyer, is being used even after death as cover for this farce.

    Lip service to respect for at least individual war veterans, justice, transparency, accountability to tax payers, bar member services, appropriate lawyer discipline, and other matters are systemic problems that need much more addressing than this Rule 32 proposal offers. The Bar President has already said the Arizona Bar is fully transparent. The Board of Governors says, conclusorily, that the Arizona Bar is already fully Keller compliant. It’s not that reasonable minds can disagree; reasonable minds can only draw one conclusion: The opt-out option will never, ever, work with a Bar with so little regard for the rights of anyone, including its own captive members. It’s just Kafkaesque, and, in the words of Jean Paul Sartre, there’s no exit.
    Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D.
    New Member
    Posts:6 New Member

    --
    05 Jun 2016 07:45 PM

    Karyl Krug, M.A., J.D.
    12149 N 134th Way
    Scottsdale, AZ 85259-3637
    Ph: 480-275-7054
    kjkrug@cox.net

    Since I last posted , in part, about the ASB's non-existent policing of legal and ethical violations in death penalty cases, yet another Arizona death penalty case has been overturned as to punishment; this time in Lynch v. AZ, the Maricopa County Superior Court failed to apply the rule set out in 1994's Simmons v. South Carolina, that juries should be told what a life sentence means when a state has life without parole. Therefore, in 2012, the Superior Court ignored an 18 year old precedent, with the able assistance of the Capital Staff (Not Really An) Attorney. Or had she been demoted to law clerk by then? In the recent McKinney case, Arizona, for 16 years, ignored a decision called Eddings v. Oklahoma, which did away with the requirement for a nexus between mitigating punishment evidence and the crime. The Bar and/or the Judicial Conduct Commission has failed to address the problem of AZ trial judges simply ignoring long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedents in death penalty cases. But then, they were happy to cover up UPL in death penalty cases, which is something Keller says mandatory bars should police.
    Linda Koschney
    New Member
    Posts:43 New Member

    --
    09 Jun 2016 10:01 AM

    Jimmie Smith
    State Bar #2661
    221 S 2nd Avenue
    Yuma, AZ 85364-2287
    Ph: 928-783-7809
    jimmie.smith@azbar.org

    My comments are not intended to create an argument with the Retired Chief Justice. There are just different points of view. I personally request the Court not to redistrict the elected Rural Members of the Board of Governors and not to impose term limits on members of the Board.
    The Solution to the number of elected board members (Rural v. Maricopa & Pima) has always in the past been to request an increase in the number of elected lawyer members from Maricopa and Pima Counties.. not to redistrict or to decrease the number of Rural Arizona Members..

    Respectfully submitted.
    Jimmie Smith... Yuma, AZ
    State Bar of Arizona
    New Member
    Posts:26 New Member

    --
    09 Jun 2016 03:20 PM
    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
    James Manley
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    10 Jun 2016 04:34 PM
    James M. Manley (031820)
    Jared H. Blanchard (031198)
    Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the
    GOLDWATER INSTITUTE
    500 E. Coronado Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85004
    (602) 462-5000
    Litigation@goldwaterinstitute.org
    Attachments
    Mo
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    10 Jun 2016 05:02 PM
    Mauricio R. Hernandez
    SBN 020181
    P.O. Box 7347
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    (623) 363-2649
    mo@lawmrh.com
    Attachments
    mmeltzer
    New Member
    Posts:11 New Member

    --
    07 Jul 2016 01:47 PM
    Petitioner:
    Hon. Rebecca Berch (ret.)
    1501 West Washington Street, Ste. 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    (602) 452-3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    Attached are Petitioner's Reply and an Appendix containing redline and clean versions of proposed amendments to Rule 32.
    Attachments
    Topic is locked