Register       Login

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.
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 29 Sep 2020 03:20 PM by Jennifer Albright
ACJA 7-210 Legal Paraprofessional (formerly Limited License Legal Practitioner)
�6 Replies
Topic is locked
Author Messages
New Member
Posts:35 New Member

12 Mar 2020 02:48 PM
    The Final Proposed ACJA 7-210document was posted October 6, 2020 (see "Proposed ACJA 7-210 Final for AJC 10.06.20" below). This version reflects changes that were made based on comments to this forum and input from the State Bar of Arizona and the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This is the version that will be presented to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) on October 22, 2020, for consideration for adoption, effective January 1, 2021 and to align with the effective date of related rule changes that were adopted by the Supreme Court in its August Order for Rule Petition R-20-0034.

    The Third Amended Draft 7-210 was filed on SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 to align proposed draft 7-210 with the Supreme Court's Order in R-20-0034 and also reflects input from various commenters here and in the Supreme Court Rules Forum. COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED THROUGH OCTIBER 5, 2020.

    This proposal was modified on JUNE 22, 2020 to align proposed draft 7-210 with the Final Amended Petition filed in R-20-0034. The Second Amended Draft 7-210 filed this date reflects changes made not only to align with R-20-0034 but also reflects input from various commenters here and in the Supreme Court Rules Forum.

    This proposal was amended April 28, 2020. See Amended Draft ACJA 7-210_ver 04.27.20 attached below.

    This is a draft proposal that creates a new ACJA section intended to set forth the licensing requirements for Limited License Legal Practitioners (LLLPs) and result in the effective administration of the LLLP program. This section includes roles and responsibilities, code of conduct, and areas and scope of practice for LLLPs.

    This proposal should be read in conjunction with Rule Petition R-20-0034: https://www.azcourts.gov/Rules-Forum/aff/123 located on the Supreme Court Rules Forum web page. That Rule Petition includes proposed amendments related to affiliate membership to the State Bar, complaints, investigation, disciplinary proceedings, and CLE requirements for LLLPs.

    The original draft proposal was revised March 12.

    Comment Deadline: Initial Comment deadline is March 30, 2020, with an amended proposal, if any, to be filed by the AOC by April 27, and a final comment period concluding on May 26, 2020.

    For more information, contact Suzanne Porter, [email protected]
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    17 Mar 2020 04:26 PM
    Yavapai College in Prescott, Arizona, is excited about what the ACJA 7-210 Limited License Legal Practitioner will mean for providing legal services to underserved rural areas like Yavapai County. With a few curricular changes recommended by the court, our current Associates of Arts Paralegal Program can be adjusted to prepare students for the LLLP exam and to complete the required internship hours. In addition, since our program is online, our program can be accessed to prepare LLLPractitioners in other rural areas in Arizona. We fully support this proposal.
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    30 Mar 2020 10:11 PM
    If experiential learning will be required for someone to become eligible to take the exam, you may want to also include a provision in Rule 38 for that scenario (although it might not be a requirement if the experiential learning is done in conjunction with a practicing attorney).

    While we have Master of Legal Studies degrees at ASU and UArizona, there are very similar degrees that go by other names at other universities.

    It might be good to include a JD degree as a qualification for those that earn the degree but do not want to sit for the full Bar examination. This might be an interesting opportunity for them.

    ASU has a BA in Business Law that is offered through the WP Carey School of Business but is administered in partnership with the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. These students take law courses but at the undergraduate level. Would those students be eligible via E(3)(b)(7)(iv}(b)?
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    30 Mar 2020 11:56 PM
    Keith Swisher, 23493
    1201 East Speedway
    Tucson, Arizona 85721
    Phone: 602.432.8464
    Email: [email protected]


    *Institutional designation is for identification purposes only.
    Basic Member
    Posts:194 Basic Member

    07 Apr 2020 03:09 PM
    Dr. Michael Davis
    Program Director of Administration of Justice
    and Paralegal Studies
    Yavapai College - Prescott Campus

    This is one of the most visionary proposals I have seen in quite some time. The lack of affordable legal representation is a huge problem and this is a very innovative way to attack it. As a lawyer and Professor in a Paralegal Studies program, I have many students you could handle legal issues such as are being proposed here in a highly effective manner. The LLLP provides an avenue for the very best of our students who cannot afford law school to enter the legal profession. Many of these students do not have an opportunity to demonstrate their skills in a typical paralegal setting. And the public is provided with legal assistance at a reasonable cost. I am very excited about this proposal and look forward to helping implement this program in our state.
    New Member
    Posts:6 New Member

    28 Apr 2020 03:52 PM
    Jennifer Albright, Staff to Legal Services Task Force:

    April 27, 2020, Amendments to proposed ACJA § 7-210.
    The first comment period for this proposal ended March 30. Based on comments and to this proposal and Rule Petition R-20-0034, an amended proposal for ACJA 7-210 was filed. The following summarizes the amendments made:

    The amendments to ACJA § 7-210 are centered in subpart (J), Code of Conduct. In the original proposal, the ethical obligations of LLLPs were not fully defined. Subpart (J)(1) now states that Supreme Court Rule 42 applies to LLLPs and provides guidance on how to read those rules in applying them to LLLPs. Except for ER 5.5(c) – (h), all ethical rules in Rule 42 are applicable to LLLPs.

    Based on a suggestion to develop a pathway for current working paralegals to become LLLPs, an additional path to licensure was added to ACJA § 7-210. Section 7-210(E)(3)(c) was added creating an educational waiver for applicants who have seven years of experience as a paralegal and who can demonstrate a specific amount of substantive legal experience in each area they seek licensure. The waiver is for the education requirements of only § 7-210(E)(3)(b)(7). Applicants meeting the experience requirements would be allowed to take the examination and be required to follow the remaining licensing processes.

    In addition, there was a slight reorganization to ACJA § 7-210(J)(5). Subpart (d) was divided into two separate sub-parts, expanding the list from four items to five. However, no substantive changes were made.
    New Member
    Posts:6 New Member

    29 Sep 2020 03:20 PM

    Posted by AOC Staff on behalf of:
    Luis Santaella
    Deputy City Attorney
    City of Scottsdale City Attorney’s Office

    I have attached a memo that discusses the Constitutional considerations related to legal representation/participation by non-lawyers in the representation of defendants. The memo does not address appointment of counsel for indigent defendants. In addition to the case information provided in the attached memo, I provide additional comments below.

    Licensed legal paraprofessionals should not be allowed to represent criminal defendants facing a loss of liberty in limited jurisdiction courts. Fortunately, the current proposed rules do not allow for such representation and I believe there would be constitutional issues if their scope of practice was expanded to include representation of defendants facing a loss of liberty. I strongly oppose any effort to expand their scope of representation where a criminal defendant is facing a loss of liberty.

    In terms of legal paraprofessionals representing defendants not facing a loss of liberty, I think they should be prohibited from representing defendants during a jury trial. Most misdemeanor offenses in limited jurisdiction courts do not have the right to trial by jury. Defendants in DUI cases have a right to a trial by jury but since jail time is automatic upon conviction of a DUI, licensed paraprofessionals would be ineligible from representing defendants in such cases. However, theft, shoplift, indecent exposure cases, resisting arrest, any offense with a sexual motivation as an element of the offense and reckless driving are all misdemeanor offenses in which the defendant has a right to a jury trial and are offenses where the prosecution may not be seeking jail time. Conducting a jury trial is a very complex and legally technical activity. It is my opinion that only licensed attorneys should be authorized to conduct criminal jury trials. It should be noted that all of the aforementioned case types have potentially significant collateral consequences depending on immigration status, driving record, employment prospects or prior sex offenses.

    I would respectfully request that my comments be taken into account during the drafting and adoption of the pertinent Arizona Code of Judicial Administration Rules. Please note that I may provide additional comments in the future. Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Luis Santaella
    Deputy City Attorney
    Prosecution, Public Safety & Victim Services
    Scottsdale City Attorney’s Office

    Topic is locked