Rule Impacts Report

Supreme Court

 RULE  AFFECTS  SUMMARY AND IMPACT

Rule 29(b)


R-11-0003

AOC Contact: Mark Meltzer

Supreme Court
Court of Appeals

Clerks

Summary: Rule 29(B) addresses appellate court records. The existing rule requires clerks of these courts to make a “photographic or electronic reproduction or image of the original record” and to maintain this copy “in a place and manner as will reasonably assure its permanent preservation.” The rule was designed to provide the Arizona State Archives with a microfilm copy of case records in appellate courts.

The amendment to Rule 29(B) will allow appellate courts to send original paper files to the Arizona State Archives, rather than sending microfilm. Original digital files that are scheduled for permanent preservation may be retained by the clerks in their electronic record repositories until State Archives has the capability to accept and preserve records in this format.

Rule 29(B)(1) updates a cross reference to Supreme Court Rule 19(a), which was deleted in 1994. The substance of that deleted rule now appears in Rule 31.23(a)(5) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the latter reference has been substituted for the former.

Impact: This rule change should not impact trial courts. The change will spare appellate courts the expense of converting paper to microfilm.


Rule 31


R-11-0023 

AOC Contact: Nancy Swetnam

Superior Court

Judges

Summary:  A licensed fiduciary may perform services in compliance with ACJA § 7-202. The court may suspend a fiduciary’s authority to act without an attorney if lay representation interferes with the orderly progress of the proceedings or imposes undue burdens on other parties.

Impact: The Supreme Court will develop and adopt amendments to ACJA § 7-202: Fiduciaries to specify the activities a licensed fiduciary may perform without the services of an attorney.  Examples include preparation and filing of the annual account.  Courts should consider the services a licensed fiduciary is authorized to perform when reviewing the accounts and bills for attorney fees.

Effective:  9/1/2012


Rule 42, Ethical Rule 1.5

R-11-0004
R-11-0015

AOC Contact: Mark Meltzer
Superior Court
Justice Court
Municipal Court

Judges
Clerks
Administrators
Summary: Two separate petitions in the current rules cycle have resulted in changes to Rule 42, ER 1.5.
  1. 11-0015: ER 1.5(b) requires a lawyer to communicate to a client “in writing” the scope of representation and the basis of the fee and expenses, and to do this when representation commences and thereafter when the rate or basis of the fee and expenses changes. The amendment to this ethical rule exempts court-appointed lawyers who are paid by a court or other governmental entity from this “in writing” requirement.
  2. 11-0004: ER 1.5(b) requires that lawyers communicate in writing any changes in the basis or rate of a fee, but it does not specify when this must be done. The amendment to ER 1.5(b) now requires that this communication must occur “before the fees or expenses to be billed at higher rates are actually incurred.”
Impact: The trial courts should be aware of these changes, but the revisions should not impact the courts.

Rule 124

R-11-0012

AOC Contact: Melinda Hardman
Superior Court
Justice Court
Municipal Court

Judges
Clerks
Administrators
Summary: The order on this petition struck the entire, existing Rule 124, and added a comment that states:

The current language of Rule 124 has been deleted because it has become obsolete. Pending the adoption of a new Rule 124, electronic filing, delivery and service of documents shall be governed by Supreme Court administrative order(s), which may be found at the Supreme Court’s website: http://www.azcourts.gov/.

Impact: Refer to existing administrative orders concerning electronic filing, delivery, and service.