FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].



Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas
 

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

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. 

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE READ: 

Contact Information

Please include all of your contact information when submitting a rule petition or comment.  Otherwise, your submission may be rejected and we will be unable to advise you as to why. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 28 Jun 2006 01:18 PM by  StateBarAZ
R-05-0034 Rules 32(c), 45 and 64(f), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.
 27 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
ggraham
Posts:

--
19 Apr 2006 05:30 PM
    R-05-0034

    PETITION TO AMEND RULES 32 (c), 45 AND 64 (f), ARIZONA RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT

    MODIFY THE DUES STRUCTURE RELATING TO MEMBERS OVER 70 AND RETIRED MEMBERS; MODIFICATIONS TO RULES GOVERNING MEMBERSHIP, MCLE AND REINSTATEMENT

    Petitioner:
    Robert B. Van Wyck, Chief Bar Counsel,
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 North 24th Street, Suite 200
    Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
    (602) 252-4804
    Bar No. 007800

    Filed December 7, 2005

    COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED AS OF MAY 22, 2006.

    ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2006-83 TO AMEND RULES 32(c), 45 and 64(f), RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 21, 2006.
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:40 PM
    Recommended changes in fee schedule for lawyers over 70 years of age [Wm. M. Waldrom, Pro Se]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:41 PM
    Proposed Changes in Bar Dues and MCLE [Michael L. Rubin, Pro Se]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:43 PM
    Comment on Proposed Changes to Rule 45 [Michelle Paz Soldan, Eyphemia Stamos Theodore, Alice Casey, Pro Se]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:44 PM
    Re: Petition to Amend State Bar Rules on Membership Catergories - Over 70 and Retired [Felecia F. Stitcher]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:45 PM
    Re: State Bar of Arizona Membership Categories - Over 70 years old [Joseph V Moschetti]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:46 PM
    Re: Petition to Amend Rules 32(c) and 64(f), Rules of the Supreme Court Petition Number R-05-0034 [Patrick E. Eldridge]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:48 PM
    Re: Opposition to Petition # R-05-0034 (State Bar of Arizona) [Myles C. Stewart]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:49 PM
    Re: Proposed Changes in Rules Relating to Senior State Bar Members [Frank E. Dickey, Jr.]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:50 PM
    Comment on Proposed Changes to Rules 32(c), 45 and 64(f); R-05-0034 [David D. Dodge]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:51 PM
    Re: Proposed Amendments to Rules 32, 45, and 64; Comments on [Richard E. Norling]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    20 Apr 2006 12:52 PM
    Re: State Bar Petition to Amend Rules 32(c), 45 and 64(f), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court [James D. V. Stevenson]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    02 May 2006 04:04 PM
    [Comments] Re: Petition R-05-0034 - Comments [Senior Lawyers of Arizona - Tucson by Joana Diamos] [for 23 members]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    02 May 2006 04:05 PM
    [Comments] Re: Proposal R-05-0034 [Gary B. Larson, Guy M. Buckley, Ronald G. Compton, Jr.]
    Attachments
    ggraham
    Posts:

    --
    02 May 2006 04:06 PM
    [Comments] Re: Petition R-05-0034 Comments [W. Edward Morgan]
    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    12 May 2006 05:26 PM
    [Comments] Re: Petition R-05-0034 [Regula Case] [Filed May 4, 2006]
    Attachments
    FMigray
    Posts:

    --
    15 May 2006 09:36 AM
    Attached comment is in opposition to proposed amendment to Rule 45.

    Commenter’s Name: Frank L. Migray

    Mailing Address: 717 W. Palm Lane
    Phoenix, AZ 85007

    Phone Number: 602-258-5225
    602-510-8726 (Cell)

    E-mail Address: [email protected]

    Bar Number: 003441 (Inactive)

    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    17 May 2006 06:30 PM
    [Comment] [James C. Mitchell]
    Attachments
    lorosco
    Posts:

    --
    18 May 2006 10:41 AM
    [Motion and Request] [Frank Lewis, Begam, Lewis & Marks]
    Attachments
    lorosco
    Posts:

    --
    18 May 2006 05:49 PM
    Judy Jacobi, Esq.
    1441 E. Edison Street
    Tucson, AZ 85719
    Bar No. 012498

    May 18, 2006


    Honorable Arizona Supreme Court Justices
    1501 W. Washington Street, 4th Floor
    Phoenix, Arizona
    85007-3329

    RE: Comment on Petition to Amend Rules 32(c), 45, and 64(f), ARIZONA RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT

    Dear Honorable Arizona Supreme Court Justices:

    After considering proposed changes to State Bar of Arizona membership requirements, I urge the Arizona Supreme Court to reject proposed dues changes to the “Inactive” category. The additional requirement to complete current year MCLE plus up to two additional years preceding activation is sensible since inactive members are literally out of practice.

    My objection is to the proposed requirement to pay differences in dues for the current year plus the difference in dues for up to two years immediately preceding reactivation. An attorney may be inactive for many reasons including illness, family/personal crisis, and difficulty finding employment. These individuals are likely experiencing financial strain attendant to the reason for their inactive status. While some inactive attorneys may have another profession or are otherwise monetarily stable, less fortunate attorneys should not be further financially burdened by paying additional dues for up to two years preceding reactivation. Unlike the proposed additional MCLE requirement, charging back dues for a lawyer who was not in practice defies reason. Paying current dues plus the cost of up to two years back MCLE is challenging enough for anyone out of work. The bar should not penalize these lawyers.

    Judy Jacobi
    Inactive Arizona Attorney

    Topic is locked
    Page 1 of 212 > >>
    Forums Rule Change Petitions under Consideration Rules of the Supreme Court