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)

Attached supplemental comment is in opposition to proposed amendment to Rule 45. I had not realized the State Bar argued additional reasons for the amendment to Rule 45 that have not been included in the Bar's Petition attached in the first post.

To the Arizona Supreme Court:

I became a member of the State Bar of Arizona in 1960 and, although I am still actively practicing law (and expect to continue doing so as long as my health permits), I turned 70 last month and was looking forward to the age-related benefits of my 46 year membership. Among those was relief from dues. Another was the welcome relief from CLE reporting and monitoring.

As respects the dues, many lawyers my age have cut back on their levels of practice but still remain and want to remain active. Yet incomes have been reduced and will likely be further reduced with each passing year. Thus, the financial impact of State Bar dues in the context of reduced income and increasing health costs is likely to be far greater to older lawyers than those in the prime of their careers. I suggest consideration of that.

As respects the CLE, there is again a financial impact. CLE has become a money-making industry, including for the State Bar of Arizona. I hope that the re-imposition of CLE requirements on those over 70 is not motivated by a desire to add money to the the State Bar's coffers at the expense of those who have a diminishing ability to bear those expenses

I suggest that the great majority of lawyers who have been in the profession long enough to have become exempt are sufficiently dedicated and responsible to remain current in their (in most cases, I suspect, increasing limited) practice areas . Those who aren't would likely have been weeded out far earlier.

Those whose intellect or attention has been dulled by age aren't likely to have that intellect restored by mandatory attendance at CLE sessions through which they may have trouble concentrating or staying awake. This, I suggest, is putting form over substance. Ultimately, other factors (including peer pressure and advice of lawyer friends) will regulate those no longer capable of practicing effectively.

I had almost 75 hours of CLE during the past two years; and that does not include additional hours that might have counted. I did that not to comply with State Bar requirements but because I am interested in and committed to what I do and want to do it well -- not just for clients but as a matter of personal pride.

Still, I was happy with the expectation that (commencing in this the 2005-06 year) I would no longer have to keep track of and then cumulate and report on my CLE. After a lifetime of dealing with a myriad of bureaucratic forms and requirements, this was to have been a bit of welcome relief.

I hope the Court will consider that those of us who will be affected -- adversely affected -- might have earned some relief. I also hope the Court will understand that, as a practical matter, no one is likely to be prejudiced by affording these small benefits.

Gary Keltner #1169

[Comment] [Robert D. Myers, Department of Corrections]

[Comment] [Edwin V. Matney]

[Comment] [Conrad W. Sanders, Pro Se]

[Comment] [Oral Argument Requested] [Robert B. Young, Esq.]

Steven A. Keller
AZ Bar No. 7426
Environmental Enforcement Section
United States Department of Justice
PO Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044-7611
202-514-5465

Robert B. Van Wyck, Bar No. 007800
Chief Bar Counsel
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th Street, Ste. 200
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
Telephone: 602) 340-7241

Notice of Withdrawal of Petition to Amend Rule 32(c), 45 and 64(f) and Request for Temporary Administrative Order (attached)