In response to the Proposal dated December 8, 2021, I would like to provide the following feedback:

The LDP program was created for the purpose of protecting the public from possible harm caused by nonlawyers (usually underqualified paralegals) while also providing a more affordable and attainable option to the public for legal services. This program has been in effect for nearly two decades, and has been so successful that other states throughout the country are now looking to Arizona LDPs for guidance in establishing similar programs.

As LDPs, we are held to a far greater standard than other non-lawyers because our licenses and livelihoods depend on it. I regularly see paralegals and other non-licensed individuals offering legal services in social media forums. There is little to no oversight or regulation of unauthorized practice of law in Arizona. The LDP program, however, creates an incentive for non-lawyers to continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard, both ethically and professionally, but we need to have the leeway to do so.

The Proposal greatly hinders an LDPs ability to perform his or her job as it states that "a legal document preparer shall not draft documents that require legal outcome-based research." In other words, if this Proposal is integrated into the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, LDPs would be prohibited from drafting any document that requires "Legal outcome-based research [which] is required to draft substantive legal motions, supporting memoranda, or appellate briefs [or] applying legal research to the facts of a client’s case to advocate for an outcome..."

This is not a realistic expectation for LDPs. I agree that LDPs should not give legal advice or assist with legal strategy in any way, and we should only draft documents in accordance with the instructions our non-attorney clients provide to us; however, we have a professional and ethical obligation to our clients to understand and apply the law to their cases.

In my practice, I often send clients to attorneys for legal advice. The attorneys review the client's case, provide legal advice, and assist the client in coming up with legal arguments. The client then reports back to me and instructs me on what to include in their legal pleadings. More often than not, this arrangement is made by the client because they simply cannot afford to retain the attorney. LDPs provide a more cost-effective way for clients to access the justice system, and we free up attorneys so that they are able to work on more complex matters. It truly is a win-win for everyone involved, but the Proposal would prevent this type of access to justice.

Many non-attorneys are able to access case law through the court library, but they do not know how to properly format the information into a proper pleading. These clients should not be left with limited options to (1) hire an attorney (which they cannot afford), (2) draft their pleadings without any experience or knowledge of the court system, or (3) hire an unlicensed and unregulated paralegal. LDPs are the alternative the public needs, but we must be given the full authority of the Code to do our jobs effectively.

I propose that the language be amended to allow LDPs the ability to apply legal outcome-based research so long as such research is found at the direction of the client. How the clients obtains that research (whether by him/herself or with the assistance of an attorney who is retained solely for that purpose) should be left to the client. The verbiage of the Proposal prevents LDPs from being able to take information that our clients provide to us and format it properly. Allowing LDPs to apply legal outcome-based research, but under limited circumstances, will safeguard the public from unauthorized practice of law while also ensuring that LDPs are able to continue providing a vital service to the public.

In this instance, with respect, I am writing this letter (attached) to address and strenuously object to not only to the content of the proposed revisions, but also to the form, and the manner which AOC and the Board of Nonlawyer Legal Service Providers (together, “Petitioner”) has presented a bifurcated “second” proposal for amending ACJA §7-208, after receiving resounding objections to the first proposed changes.

This is the second time Petitioner has attempted to make significant proposed change(s) to ACJA §7-208 in 2021. In the current (“second”) Petition, Petitioner evidently seeks to have previous comments and objections to its prior proposal posted in the rules forum (Pending Code Proposals-ACJA Web Forum) ignored, disqualified, or otherwise not admitted for consideration by the Court by bifurcating the two proposals and only presenting the second as an active proposal, when there were overwhelming negative comments from not only the public, but Certified Legal Document Preparers (collectively, “LDP’s”) with extensive experience, as well as outside counsel for the Arizona Association of Independent Paralegals (AAIP) about its previous incarnation, posted on or about 22 July 2021.

The two proposals for amending ACJA §7-208 are substantially the same, in that the proposals would create a scheme of wrongful over-regulation through additional, more restrictive regulations and an unfair and burdensome restraint on trade. The proposals are substantially against public policy, denying accessibility and simplicity for the self-represented litigant. The subject proposal would have a negative public and judicial impact, if enacted.

Additional, substantive comments and detailed objections to specific parts of the proposal are in the letter, attached hereto.

Once again, the Staff Attorney has filed a proposal for significant change in Sec 7-208 which will result in reducing the public's access to legal services and has done so without providing any justification or evidence of need for such proposal, violation of ACJA 7-201.

Any complaints to the Board for "legal research" or "substantive motions" appear to be miniscule, if any, and none that were presented by a consumer.

Now we have a proposal that provides a new and nearly incomprehensible definition for "Legal outcome-based research" which itself flies in the face of the LDP's granted ability to provide options to the Self-Represented Litigant (SRL) and includes a statement ("Legal outcome-based research is required to draft substantive motions, supporting memoranda or appellate briefs") which is questionable at best. One of the problems that LDPs have had in the past was the tendency of the Staff Attorney (and the Board at times) to "go after" an LDP for performing a service that the Staff Attorney felt, without documentation, was UPL. Those "prosecutions" usually failed if the LDP hired counsel and this "definition" appears to be made purposely vague with the intent to provide the Staff Attorney and the Board with a means to once again provide their own interpretation of the definition or code.

The recent task force for "Access to Legal Services" purported to increase or expand the public's access to legal help or assistance, but, so far, it appears that the Board and the Staff Attorney have taken the opposite tack and are trying to hinder that access. For instance, under this new definition, motions that require legal research, whether or not directed or requested by the SRL, are prohibited. This means that virtually all motions, except the very few that are "court-approved" in family law matters, will be prohibited. So...what are the Pro Se litigants to do then....go to an attorney that they cannot afford or blunder through it somehow by themselves?

Promulgation of this restriction will not only damage or destroy the hundreds of LDP businesses that have aided hundreds of thousands of Arizonans over the past 19 years but will restrict the ability of Arizona citizens to process and proceed with their legal matters.

The other objection I have is to the requirement of a "Professionalism Class". ACJA 7-208 is quite precise in stating its Code of Conduct including professionalism and ethics. The proposal of this class is not only an insult to LDPs but appears to be a method of inculcating the Staff opinions about how LDP's should operate their businesses. There is no need and no justification (once again) for such a class. The expense and inconvenience of this proposed class is a waste of time and money.

The proposed amendments were posted without notice to interested parties as required by ACJA 7-201, were not justified by facts or statistics, and may even be unconstitutional. They should be rejected by the Court and almost certainly, if not rejected, be challenged in federal court.

The proposed changes to ACJA 7-208 regarding the "legal outcome-based research" is very restrictive and setting CLD's up for failure. CLD's are important for the public good because access to the legal system is not always affordable and/or understandable to a lay person. CLD's provide assistance to a large portion of the under-served public. I am perplexed why this new language is being proposed unless it is trying to stop the CLD program now that the Legal Paraprofessional (LP) program has movement. What is the ultimate goal of this proposed change? What protection would it provide the public? Would that protection outweigh the harm to the public? Does the public even understand how restrictive this proposed language is and how it will cause a ripple affect in the public's options for help? This will actually cause public harm as the resources for accessing the legal system is already difficult for most and for some not even attainable without a CLD's assistance. People are going to their aunt, cousin, friend because they can't navigate the system, or understand what the forms are instructing them to do. The CLD's at least understand the basics of legal terminology and how to navigate the filing of documents, etc. The Court's would become more congested as the public attempts to file their own documents, the Clerk's Office would have a higher call volume as the public tries to get help that the Clerk's Office can't provide, documents would get lost because of the public not knowing where to file or make sure copies get the Judge's division, etc. Essentially, this proposed language puts such a strong restriction on CLD's that they have zero room to do any good for anyone. Essentially, print a form and fill it out, which if the public can do that, they generally do not seek the assistance of a CLD. Should CLD's be drafting appellate briefs? This is not the question we should be asking. The question should be: If the public needs someone to draft an appellate brief, what are their options? (1) they could do it on their own, or (2) they could hire an attorney. The public only has two options. Is this just and reasonable for the public? Would it not make sense to have a third option such as a CLD so that at minimum the public has the option to get assistance? The majority of people are not going to file an appeal on their own. It's a detailed process and it's very technical. I personally would not draft appellate briefs even if allowed because this is not within my skill set, even with 31 years experience. But I also could not afford to hire an attorney and would love the option to have a CLD who does have this skill set to assist me in the preparing of the document. I understand protecting the public from harm, but seriously there is more harm by the public not having access to affordable assistance than any harm a CLD could do in the big picture. I have seen cases that break my heart because the laws that restrict professional also prevent the public in the most dire need from assessing the legal system. There are no good options for the poor, nor the ones that struggle with comprehension. Sure there are legal clinics, pro bono attorneys, etc. Has anyone that is reviewing this proposed change recently tried to obtain legal help through a legal clinic, or find a pro bono attorney, or get legal advice under $500.00? Trust me - it's near impossible. I am not advocating for CLD's to give legal advice, not pretend to be attorneys, or violate any laws/rules while assisting the public. I am, however, advocating that we consider the long term consequences and ripple effects for imposing such restrictive rules on CLD's. We are truly trying to help the public, help the Court System, and do good in the world. I appreciate anyone that has taken the time to read my input.

The outcome based legal research restriction is unclear. It can be argued any paperwork one drafts is outcome based and relies on legal rules whether procedural or substantive. This is just an attempt to further clip the wings of legal document preparers by the attorney dominated legal field. There is a clear aggression against the licensing by some Arizona attorneys. I request the board stop interfering and wasting time nitpicking our code specifications. LDPs do plenty of important work for lower income individuals. We deserve respectful treatment. We are supervised by every judge we submit paperwork to and we have clear feedback and correction from them. This nitpicking is unnecessary and not called for. The public voted to have legal paraprofessionals licensed in this state recently. Of course, what they were thinking of was us, legal document preparers. The public doesn't concern themselves with these splitting of hairs. They know there are independent paralegals in the business community that are respected and are much cheaper than attorneys. That is the bottom line. They voted for this to continue. Blocking legal document preparers from easy certification as a LPP is just another example of this resistance to honest support of independent paralegals in this state. The likely reason this could be is because many lawyers would prefer to limit their competition. The attorneys who drafted the law for the LPP malformed the law so much that now, they primarily will benefit. As they will send their paralegals to court for small matters and save time and money doing so. Most of the paralegals that qualify under that truncated code will never work for themselves. I request the Board listen only to the public opinion on this matter and leave the lawyers out of it. The lawyers have a glaring conflict of interest and have proved unable to be charitable and supportive of healthy competition.

Re: December 8, 2021-Proposed Changes to ACJA § 7-208
Second Posting
In Response:

Here we go again. Attempts to change rule language that will inevitably put a CERTIFIED Legal Document Preparer in the cross-hairs of many aggrieved attorneys and/or put us out of business. The proposed rule changes and code language still sounds eerily the same as the suggestions that were made that ended up with a TASK FORCE being commissioned to review the rules and responsibilities of CLDPs. AGAIN,that Task Force did not change any of the language that allows us to prepare the paperwork necessary to assist the general public who are unrepresented, Self-Represented Litigant (“SRL”), however, it is under attack once more.

First, I agree with all other responses and points of view provided in this forum to date, AND I refer to ALL of the initial responses provided when this issue first arose, AGAIN, in July of 2021, and incorporate them as inclusive in this, my current response. In reading other current responding statements, I agree with them and can determine that they all are grounded in day-to-day experience and use in what we do for the SRL.

Please allow me to provide another example of HOW the rule language of “Legal Outcome-Based Research” WILL stop me from effectively assisting others in our area who actively use my services to assist them.
Among other documents prepared by this office in other areas of law, I prepare innumerous amounts of real property deeds and documents to effectively CHANGE title and vesting from one person to another. I assist many SRL’s that are guided to my office by local title companies, local attorneys, judges, and Navajo County official government offices for these purposes. Under the new rule language change, the rules will fully stop me from being an effective document preparer for documents that I currently provide.
Currently, when a SRL comes in to request a deed change (changing someone’s rights to property), I generally ask them if they have a copy or original deed for whatever property they are working with for reference and vesting, or a title company has informed them that something specific needs to be done and they provide a title report. Our office is a referred place to call/go to for many of those services. Most of the time the response regarding a deed is that they do not have one (many long-term property owners). I then ask them if they will allow me to look up their property to find current vesting. I usually do get permission (AND, thankfully, it is public record). Upon RESEARCHING the vesting on property, about 35% of the time, there is something else that is different than what the SRL was expecting to do.

My question now becomes, what is “LEGAL OUTCOME-BASED RESEARCH?” Is this not “Legal Outcome-Based Research” as defined? And if I do not do an allowed search (double-check) on property prior to preparing a document as requested, am I not doing a disservice to the person(s) who has come to me for assistance regarding the changes to their title/vesting? If I blindly agree to preparing a document as that person has requested WITHOUT making sure that I am not creating a huge legal problem with their property, am I not causing harm to others? You all have no idea the problems I have helped fix from other CLDP’s who HAVE NOT DONE any research by doing “Legal Outcome-Based Research.”
To me, if you incorporate this language, “Legal document preparers may not perform legal research for the purpose of providing specific advice, opinions, or recommendations about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options or strategies” the staff has effectively made me INEFFECTIVE as a resource for our community, our title companies, and our official County government offices that I work with directly in correcting so many problems with our rural parcels and real property issues. If our office is not allowed to do “LEGAL OUTCOME-BASED RESEARCH,” even at the permission of the land-owner, my hands have become tied to correctly providing our services. Real property documents and civil procedures have become around 50% of my business requests. This percentage does not include the services provided toward estate planning and property vesting for those purposes. Legal Outcome-Based Research is necessary for those real property transfer documents as well.

This language not only STOPS us from doing simple motions, but also stops everything we do to make sure that we are not causing harm to the general public. ALL RESEARCH can be interpreted as “Legal Outcome-Based Research.” What research is not, or does not have, legal outcome? Research is done to assist in making a decision about everything, and to make sure that the proper statute still applies to whatever basic pleading is being used (after statutory changes to our laws), and/or the proper rule is being followed according to the Arizona Rules of Court in ALL legal procedures (because they change too or I would not receive a new book every year).
The term “Legal Outcome-Based Research” is very broad term and can be interpreted in any way that any attorney wants in order to make complaint against a CLDP. And I will go so far as to state again that my perception from being AT the Task Force meeting and these rule change requests are being designed to stop us from LEGALLY assisting the unrepresented general public in their legal matters when they cannot afford to pay attorneys. And that is a HUGE DISSERVICE to the public. There is really little to no evidence that we are harming others in our current capacities.

In comprehending the newly worded legal term addition and definition, it appears that whomever is attempting these changes is assuming that CLDP’s are focused on family law documents/procedures, and/or civil law documents/procedures, and that this is necessary to stop a CLDP from creating a legal argument that must be defended by either another SRL or an attorney. And it seems that the biggest concern is that creating a document with a stance/legal argument/remedy is what is determined as “the practice of law,” which is what the change is trying to regulate. I do not have any suggestions regarding that being accomplished, however, I do believe that it is only necessary to those on the Board or involved in our program who seem to want only an attorney or a SRL to be qualified to do that. My biggest concern as a practicing CLDP is how this language has the probability of causing harm when there is none due.
 
We are engaged in a profession that we exercise a limited level of the practice of law. How much the Board or Supreme Court wants to restrict us from what we are doing seems to be where the issue lies. If we are restricted greatly (the first submission of language) than it is a huge disservice in continuing the LDP program and puts most of us out of business. If we are restricted minimally, or greater, in order to make some attorneys/judges more comfortable, is it only satisfying those in the industry? Or is it actually doing service to the 85%-90% of unrepresented public in Arizona that needs access to people in our program? Where to draw the line is the issue. My question is then, how much has this come up in the complaint department? Are the complaints generally from attorneys? If they are, why is that not put into perspective? Why is the goal to limit, even more, our level of limited practice of law versus limiting attorneys from filing complaints against CLDPs?
In my years of doing this limited level of the practice of law, I made a choice after I got into this (after hearing from other CLDPs) that I was not going to include any case research in legal pleadings unless a client walked in with that case research in their hands and asked for it to be included. I made that decision for a couple of reasons: 1) To me, it was a clear practice of law to research cases and use case law in an argument that a regular John Doe/Jane Doe would not do; AND 2) I did not want to be accused of and charged with the unauthorized practice of law (still on the A.R.S. books when I started this) as a result of practicing case law, because back then, most attorneys and anyone else in the system made their attitudes clear that they did not accept a CLDP as a valid person/position in the legal system (at least not up here in this rural area). It ended up affording me a much less volatile environment and personal defenses. It actually paid off. Sticking to statutes and the rules of court helped the perception of what I did to NOT BE that of an attorney, and more closely replicating that of a Self-Represented Litigant. THAT is what we do/do not do – we do NOT give advice as to what anyone should or should not do (assimilated from an old CLE on the AZ Bar website-“If it is an answer to a question that could be posed as “Should I do this? Or this?”) and provide legal documents and assistance regarding legal procedure.


I will again include Arlene’s Rheinfelder’s quote from the first round in my response:
QUOTE:
“When establishing the legal document preparer program, the purpose was clearly stated: “… the need to protect the public from possible harm caused by nonlawyers providing legal services must be balanced against the public’s need for access to legal services.” ACJA 7-208(C) emphasis added. The program was established to “Protect the public through the certification of legal document preparers to ensure conformance to the highest ethical standards and performance of responsibilities in a professional and competent manner.” ACJA 7-208(C)(1)”

QUOTE:
“After a two-year task force on increasing access to legal services and introducing the LP program, which has yet to have any certificates issued and will only include practitioners in family law at the beginning, we see a proposed change to ACJA 7-208 that will reduce access to legal services. This is at a time when the recently released 2020 Arizona Access to Justice Commission Annual Report states:
"Legal aid agencies remain overwhelmed with demand for civil legal assistance. These agencies face actual or potential loss of funding, threatening not only the timely delivery of legal services but also the capacity to administer an effective volunteer lawyer program. Quick access to useful legal information that can be understood and used by self- represented litigants (“SRLs”) remains a critical need." (p. 3) (March 2021)”
 
Let us move on to some of the even more specific changes:

ACJA 7-208 F(1)(a)
1. Authorized Services. A certified legal document preparer is authorized to:
“a. Prepare or provide legal documents, without the supervision of an attorney, for a person or entity in “a” legal matter when that person or entity is not represented by an attorney. A legal document preparer shall not draft “documents that require legal outcome-based research, except that a legal document preparer may assist a client with the completion of motions in family court proceedings using the appropriate court approved motions form:”

If I read this correctly, again, it applies strict limits to the documents a CLDP is allowed to do and how they must be done. I, personally, DO NOT USE court supplied template documents. If a document is a hand-written document by a client, my name/CLDP number WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THAT DOCUMENT. All of my documents have been type-written and are computer-generated documents that are locked/secured if transferred by email or printed and signed in front of a Notary Public in order to avoid client manipulation and to avoid any claim from a client that may decide to be vindictive due loss of a case, changing/placing language that was not used by me, the CLDP.

“d. Conduct legal research necessary to understand general legal principles to assist a client identify and complete a competent legal form or document. A legal document preparer shall not perform legal outcome-based research as defined in this code.”

See all of the above in rebuttal to this paragraph.

ACJA 7-208 K(5)(f)
f. Delinquent Continuing Education $250.00

Is this not a little extreme??? With EVERYTHING going up in price at an extremely fast pace, can we not push this to this level at this time? I get that you want it to hurt, but seriously? Can this be reconsidered at the $100-$150 level?

Any other changes not specifically addressed here generally means that I am not opposed to said proposed changes.

I will reiterate from the first proposed change:
What I do not understand is why do we go through the trouble to obtain the schooling and/or experience required, pay fees to get certified, have to pass a lengthy test to prove our competence, and then be required to keep our knowledge base updated with continuing education, if the board that oversees us, and the attorney who is supposed to be defending us, CONTINUES to want to tie our hands and strip us of the exact things that are needed to help the general public?? Prior to the task force being commissioned, it was similar proposed language, stripping us of being able to prepare documents and turning us into glorified space filler-inners. This new proposal, to me, is just a back-door approach to achieving the same thing – start with small things to prohibit and work our way through prohibiting each document over time. Seriously? Who else is seeing this??
WE ARE CERTIFIED. We are doing what we do, under SUPREME COURT REGULATIONS, because we WANT TO HELP those who cannot navigate the system or do not have the means to obtain an attorney AND do it legally.
 
If you strip us of the tools and the means to help the general public, why would we need to get certified??? I could just be a Notary Public and help people fill in the blanks! Then, the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction over me if I harm the general public. And since THERE IS NO LONGER an UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW statute on the books, I will repeat what a Court Administrative professional/pro tem Justice (who used to be a CLDP) said upon learning that, “Then why would ANYBODY need to get/be certified?”

PLEASE consider, in the attempts to tie our hands, it eliminates the option people have to use the option of a CLDP effectively, which will in turn give less options to the legal system in our state, and we reach a group of people that other options do not reach. With our program, people at least have another affordable option available to them and that they have recourse if we do something that harms them. And in the information I have been able to obtain regarding the history of the program, that percentage has been quite low. What I do believe is that in the world of attorneys, courts, legal systems, that are in major cities and highly populated areas with many options, do NOT understand that to provide assistance to those in a county that is not directly visible to them with the highest poverty levels, do not understand the value of our program. We are a second-home community, mostly, that has only one option for people who serve that type of population, and they have to be seriously indigent in order to receive help from White Mountain Legal Aid, which they are seriously overwhelmed and restricted to the types of cases they can accept due to being overwhelmed. They, too, refer people to my office in certain cases. I receive people sent by judges, attorneys, title companies, Legal Aid, and the general public.


Respectfully,
S.L. Caley, AZ CLDP #81026

We already saw the main portion of this proposed rule change in 2017 which was ultimately rejected. Yet, here we are again. I think it is important to understand the purpose of the legal document preparer program.

When establishing the legal document preparer program, the purpose was clearly stated: “… the need to protect the public from possible harm caused by nonlawyers providing legal services must be balanced against the public’s need for access to legal services.” ACJA 7-208(C) emphasis added. The program was established to “Protect the public through the certification of legal document preparers to ensure conformance to the highest ethical standards and performance of responsibilities in a professional and competent manner.” ACJA 7-208(C)(1)

For many Arizonans, the high costs of attorney fees are simply not affordable. They are forced by economics to represent themselves. It is impossible to maintain any legal action without legal documents. Self-represented litigants (“SRLs”), without legal training, often find it difficult to narrow down the legal issues in their matters and find and cite to relevant legal authority to resolve those issues. This makes it difficult, if not impossible for SRLs to protect their legal rights. Additionally, courts are placed in a position of deciphering the intentions of the SRLs before they can begin to consider the merits of claims. For this reason, the legal document preparer program was established to to “Prepare or provide legal documents, without the supervision of an attorney, for an entity or a member of the public in any legal matter when that entity or person is not represented by an attorney.” ACJA 7-208(F)(a) .

After a two-year task force on increasing access to legal services and introducing the LP program, which has yet to have any certificates issued and will only include practitioners in family law at the beginning, we see a proposed change to ACJA 7-208 that will reduce access to legal services. This is at a time when the recently released 2020 Arizona Access to Justice Commission Annual Report states:

Legal aid agencies remain overwhelmed with demand for civil legal assistance. These agencies face actual or potential loss of funding, threatening not only the timely delivery of legal services but also the capacity to administer an effective volunteer lawyer program. Quick access to useful legal information that can be understood and used by self-represented litigants (“SRLs”) remains a critical need. (p. 3) (March 2021)

The proposed ban on drafting “substantive legal motions, supporting memorandum, or appellate briefs, except that a legal document preparer may assist a client with a completion of motions in family court proceedings using the appropriate court approved motions form” will harm the public. (The court provided motion form in Yavapai County is blank. It is not clear why the use of a blank form will help protect the public from harm or do anything to assist in the drafting of a legal document that is easier to produce using word processing software.)

Denying access to affordable legal services to those who cannot afford an attorney is denying access to justice. Instead of having a justice system where an issue is determined on the merits, we will become a justice system where legal rights are determined by whether a person has the means to afford an attorney.

It is possible to write a substantive legal document (with supporting case law) without providing legal advice and while keeping the SRL firmly in the driver’s seat of determining what issues are relevant and what issues the SRL wishes to argue. This can be done by interviewing the client and asking the client to explain why the client thinks his/her position is correct and putting that in legal terms, researching the law, and citing cases that support the client’s argument. Additionally, the legal document preparer (“LDP”) may ask the client to consult with an attorney in a limited scope to determine issues and legal theory which is then used by the LDP to draft the substantive document. The proposed rule changes 7-208(F) do not even consider that an LDP can collaborate with an attorney, who is involved in a limited scope.

Furthermore, when this very same issue was brought up with the last proposed change in 2017, division staff could not provide one single instance of a consumer who had been harmed by an LDP preparing a substantive motion. The only complaints related to substantive motions were filed by judges and attorneys, who did not feel the LDP should be allowed to prepare these types of documents. There simply is no good reason for adopting this change, and a very good public policy reason to not make this change: to promote access to legal services for SRLs.

Between the first posting of this rule change and the current posting, I had no less than three potential clients that I turned away (based on the proposed rule change) because they needed 1) an Appellate Brief, and 2) substantive motions with case law to support the argument. Their response to me was, “Where can I go for help? I can’t afford an attorney.” So that is the question, that I pose to division staff and the board members who are pushing this rule change: Where can they go for help when they can’t afford an attorney? Will we allow Arizona to become a system of justice where only those who can afford an attorney receive justice?

I understand the argument that “the LP can provide those services.” However, there are few at present and their scope of practice is limited to family law because that is the only specialization test available at the present time. This leaves a huge gap in access to legal services. Perhaps in time the LP program will become more viable as a solution, but at the present time it is not. To restrict LDPs in the hope that the LP program might someday provide a solution is bad public policy and leaves SRLs in a terrible situation of losing legal rights because they are not wealthy enough to afford them. We will have a system of justice for wealthy, but not for the poor. That is not justice.

I object to any proposals to prevent a legal document preparer from preparing documents that require “legal outcome based research.” I object to the definition. Even Judge Swann, who does not believe the legal document preparer program should exist, stated to the effect in a 2 year task force meeting, that if you are going to allow legal document preparers to practice law, then you cannot tie their hands by not allowing them to do the job properly.

I think a major issue is that division staff and the non LDP board members do not actually understand what legal document preparers do for the public. This was evident during the 2-year task force.

7-208(L). I disagree with the requirement of 3(b). I do not believe that division staff needs to be tasked with providing a 2-hour long class that takes away from substantive continuing education. I think if division staff (who already have plenty to do) want to prepare a class, they should provide an outline of what will be taught to determine if this is actually relevant to the profession. Then, we as LDPs could perhaps have some input. As it stands, this class on the “role and responsibilities” is covered by our professional association, Arizona Association of Independent Paralegals, as part of ethics training at each seminar.

I'm attaching my comment in Word also because it does not appear that this forum will allow for proper formatting.

I disagree with the increase in ethics hours. If the continuing education period is two years, then ethics should be two hours. Again, I think the priority for continuing education should be in substantive areas.

I disagree with the change to credit hours from tax related curriculum. Taxes are an integral part of understanding how to avoid estate and income tax implications when preparing a trust. For those who prepare trusts, they need to stay competent in the tax law related to trusts.

I hereby file my second comment on the Second Posting of the Proposed Amendments to ACJA 7-208 and attach said comment hereto.

Re: December 8, 2021-Proposed Changes to ACJA § 7-208
Second Posting
In Response:

Here we go again. Attempts to change rule language that will inevitably put a CERTIFIED Legal Document Preparer in the cross-hairs of many aggrieved attorneys and/or put us out of business. The proposed rule changes and code language still sounds eerily the same as the suggestions that were made that ended up with a TASK FORCE being commissioned to review the rules and responsibilities of CLDPs. AGAIN,that Task Force did not change any of the language that allows us to prepare the paperwork necessary to assist the general public who are unrepresented, Self-Represented Litigant (“SRL”), however, it is under attack once more.

First, I agree with all other responses and points of view provided in this forum to date, AND I refer to ALL of the initial responses provided when this issue first arose, AGAIN, in July of 2021, and incorporate them as inclusive in this, my current response. In reading other current responding statements, I agree with them and can determine that they all are grounded in day-to-day experience and use in what we do for the SRL.

Please allow me to provide another example of HOW the rule language of “Legal Outcome-Based Research” WILL stop me from effectively assisting others in our area who actively use my services to assist them.
Among other documents prepared by this office in other areas of law, I prepare innumerous amounts of real property deeds and documents to effectively CHANGE title and vesting from one person to another. I assist many SRL’s that are guided to my office by local title companies, local attorneys, judges, and Navajo County official government offices for these purposes. Under the new rule language change, the rules will fully stop me from being an effective document preparer for documents that I currently provide.
Currently, when a SRL comes in to request a deed change (changing someone’s rights to property), I generally ask them if they have a copy or original deed for whatever property they are working with for reference and vesting, or a title company has informed them that something specific needs to be done and they provide a title report. Our office is a referred place to call/go to for many of those services. Most of the time the response regarding a deed is that they do not have one (many long-term property owners). I then ask them if they will allow me to look up their property to find current vesting. I usually do get permission (AND, thankfully, it is public record). Upon RESEARCHING the vesting on property, about 35% of the time, there is something else that is different than what the SRL was expecting to do.

My question now becomes, what is “LEGAL OUTCOME-BASED RESEARCH?” Is this not “Legal Outcome-Based Research” as defined? And if I do not do an allowed search (double-check) on property prior to preparing a document as requested, am I not doing a disservice to the person(s) who has come to me for assistance regarding the changes to their title/vesting? If I blindly agree to preparing a document as that person has requested WITHOUT making sure that I am not creating a huge legal problem with their property, am I not causing harm to others? You all have no idea the problems I have helped fix from other CLDP’s who HAVE NOT DONE any research by doing “Legal Outcome-Based Research.”
To me, if you incorporate this language, “Legal document preparers may not perform legal research for the purpose of providing specific advice, opinions, or recommendations about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options or strategies” the staff has effectively made me INEFFECTIVE as a resource for our community, our title companies, and our official County government offices that I work with directly in correcting so many problems with our rural parcels and real property issues. If our office is not allowed to do “LEGAL OUTCOME-BASED RESEARCH,” even at the permission of the land-owner, my hands have become tied to correctly providing our services. Real property documents and civil procedures have become around 50% of my business requests. This percentage does not include the services provided toward estate planning and property vesting for those purposes. Legal Outcome-Based Research is necessary for those real property transfer documents as well.

This language not only STOPS us from doing simple motions, but also stops everything we do to make sure that we are not causing harm to the general public. ALL RESEARCH can be interpreted as “Legal Outcome-Based Research.” What research is not, or does not have, legal outcome? Research is done to assist in making a decision about everything, and to make sure that the proper statute still applies to whatever basic pleading is being used (after statutory changes to our laws), and/or the proper rule is being followed according to the Arizona Rules of Court in ALL legal procedures (because they change too or I would not receive a new book every year).
The term “Legal Outcome-Based Research” is very broad term and can be interpreted in any way that any attorney wants in order to make complaint against a CLDP. And I will go so far as to state again that my perception from being AT the Task Force meeting and these rule change requests are being designed to stop us from LEGALLY assisting the unrepresented general public in their legal matters when they cannot afford to pay attorneys. And that is a HUGE DISSERVICE to the public. There is really little to no evidence that we are harming others in our current capacities.

In comprehending the newly worded legal term addition and definition, it appears that whomever is attempting these changes is assuming that CLDP’s are focused on family law documents/procedures, and/or civil law documents/procedures, and that this is necessary to stop a CLDP from creating a legal argument that must be defended by either another SRL or an attorney. And it seems that the biggest concern is that creating a document with a stance/legal argument/remedy is what is determined as “the practice of law,” which is what the change is trying to regulate. I do not have any suggestions regarding that being accomplished, however, I do believe that it is only necessary to those on the Board or involved in our program who seem to want only an attorney or a SRL to be qualified to do that. My biggest concern as a practicing CLDP is how this language has the probability of causing harm when there is none due.
 
We are engaged in a profession that we exercise a limited level of the practice of law. How much the Board or Supreme Court wants to restrict us from what we are doing seems to be where the issue lies. If we are restricted greatly (the first submission of language) than it is a huge disservice in continuing the LDP program and puts most of us out of business. If we are restricted minimally, or greater, in order to make some attorneys/judges more comfortable, is it only satisfying those in the industry? Or is it actually doing service to the 85%-90% of unrepresented public in Arizona that needs access to people in our program? Where to draw the line is the issue. My question is then, how much has this come up in the complaint department? Are the complaints generally from attorneys? If they are, why is that not put into perspective? Why is the goal to limit, even more, our level of limited practice of law versus limiting attorneys from filing complaints against CLDPs?
In my years of doing this limited level of the practice of law, I made a choice after I got into this (after hearing from other CLDPs) that I was not going to include any case research in legal pleadings unless a client walked in with that case research in their hands and asked for it to be included. I made that decision for a couple of reasons: 1) To me, it was a clear practice of law to research cases and use case law in an argument that a regular John Doe/Jane Doe would not do; AND 2) I did not want to be accused of and charged with the unauthorized practice of law (still on the A.R.S. books when I started this) as a result of practicing case law, because back then, most attorneys and anyone else in the system made their attitudes clear that they did not accept a CLDP as a valid person/position in the legal system (at least not up here in this rural area). It ended up affording me a much less volatile environment and personal defenses. It actually paid off. Sticking to statutes and the rules of court helped the perception of what I did to NOT BE that of an attorney, and more closely replicating that of a Self-Represented Litigant. THAT is what we do/do not do – we do NOT give advice as to what anyone should or should not do (assimilated from an old CLE on the AZ Bar website-“If it is an answer to a question that could be posed as “Should I do this? Or this?”) and provide legal documents and assistance regarding legal procedure.
Legal document preparation is a practice of law that “effects the rights of an individual.” EVERYTHING that we do requires some level of research and has the possible impact of changing someone’s life. Keeping that in mind when I do what it is that I do as a CLDP has been paramount to all else that gets done in my office because it better be right or I have caused harm! And it cannot be right if I do not do “LEGAL OUTCOME-BASED RESEARCH!”

I will again include Arlene’s Rheinfelder’s quote from the first round in my response:
QUOTE:
“When establishing the legal document preparer program, the purpose was clearly stated: “… the need to protect the public from possible harm caused by nonlawyers providing legal services must be balanced against the public’s need for access to legal services.” ACJA 7-208(C) emphasis added. The program was established to “Protect the public through the certification of legal document preparers to ensure conformance to the highest ethical standards and performance of responsibilities in a professional and competent manner.” ACJA 7-208(C)(1)”

QUOTE:
“After a two-year task force on increasing access to legal services and introducing the LP program, which has yet to have any certificates issued and will only include practitioners in family law at the beginning, we see a proposed change to ACJA 7-208 that will reduce access to legal services. This is at a time when the recently released 2020 Arizona Access to Justice Commission Annual Report states:
"Legal aid agencies remain overwhelmed with demand for civil legal assistance. These agencies face actual or potential loss of funding, threatening not only the timely delivery of legal services but also the capacity to administer an effective volunteer lawyer program. Quick access to useful legal information that can be understood and used by self- represented litigants (“SRLs”) remains a critical need." (p. 3) (March 2021)”

Let us move on to some of the even more specific changes:

ACJA 7-208 F(1)(a)
1. Authorized Services. A certified legal document preparer is authorized to:
“a. Prepare or provide legal documents, without the supervision of an attorney, for a person or entity in “a” legal matter when that person or entity is not represented by an attorney. A legal document preparer shall not draft “documents that require legal outcome-based research, except that a legal document preparer may assist a client with the completion of motions in family court proceedings using the appropriate court approved motions form:”

If I read this correctly, again, it applies strict limits to the documents a CLDP is allowed to do and how they must be done. I, personally, DO NOT USE court supplied template documents. If a document is a hand-written document by a client, my name/CLDP number WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THAT DOCUMENT. All of my documents have been type-written and are computer-generated documents that are locked/secured if transferred by email or printed and signed in front of a Notary Public in order to avoid client manipulation and to avoid any claim from a client that may decide to be vindictive due to loss of a case, changing/placing language that was not used by me, the CLDP. It is a huge liability.
Again I ask, what is the motive for adding this language? Is it solely to restrict the CLDP from creating a “legal argument” that in turn is to be litigated in a legal procedure? I have personally referred people to attorneys when the case has boiled into a problematic litigation, when drafting a full-on legal argument with case law and statutes must be utilized for a judge to make a ruling. I leave the decision to the client with the advice of their attorney.

“d. Conduct legal research necessary to understand general legal principles to assist a client identify and complete a competent legal form or document. A legal document preparer shall not perform legal outcome-based research as defined in this code.”

See all of the above in rebuttal to this paragraph.

ACJA 7-208 K(5)(f)
f. Delinquent Continuing Education $250.00

Is this not a little extreme??? With EVERYTHING going up in price at an extremely fast pace, can we not push this to this level at this time? I get that you want it to hurt, but seriously? Can this be reconsidered at the $100-$150 level?

Any other changes not specifically addressed here generally means that I am not opposed to said proposed changes.

 
I will reiterate from the first proposed change:
What I do not understand is why do we go through the trouble to obtain the schooling and/or experience required, pay fees to get certified, have to pass a lengthy test to prove our competence, and then be required to keep our knowledge base updated with continuing education, if the board that oversees us, and the attorney who is supposed to be defending us, CONTINUES to want to tie our hands and strip us of the exact things that are needed to help the general public?? Prior to the task force being commissioned, it was similar proposed language, stripping us of being able to prepare documents and turning us into glorified space filler-inners. This new proposal, to me, is just a back-door approach to achieving the same thing – start with small things to prohibit and work our way through prohibiting each document over time. Seriously? Who else is seeing this??
WE ARE CERTIFIED. We are doing what we do, under SUPREME COURT REGULATIONS, because we WANT TO HELP those who cannot navigate the system or do not have the means to obtain an attorney AND do it legally.

If you strip us of the tools and the means to help the general public, why would we need to get certified??? I could just be a Notary Public and help people fill in the blanks! Then, the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction over me if I harm the general public. And since THERE IS NO LONGER an UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW statute on the books, I will repeat what a Court Administrative professional/pro tem Justice (who used to be a CLDP) said upon learning that, “Then why would ANYBODY need to get/be certified?”

PLEASE consider, in the attempts to tie our hands, it eliminates the option people have to use the option of a CLDP effectively, which will in turn give less options to the legal system in our state, and we reach a group of people that other options do not reach. With our program, people at least have another affordable option available to them and that they have recourse if we do something that harms them. And in the information I have been able to obtain regarding the history of the program, that percentage has been quite low. What I do believe is that in the world of attorneys, courts, legal systems, that are in major cities and highly populated areas with many options, do NOT understand that to provide assistance to those in a county that is not directly visible to them with the highest poverty levels, do not understand the value of our program. We are a second-home community, mostly, that has only one option for people who serve that type of population, and they have to be seriously indigent in order to receive help from White Mountain Legal Aid, which they are seriously overwhelmed and restricted to the types of cases they can accept due to being overwhelmed. They, too, refer people to my office in certain cases. I receive people sent by judges, attorneys, title companies, Legal Aid, and the general public.

Respectfully, S.L. Caley, AZ CLDP #81026

Re: December 8, 2021-Proposed Changes to ACJA § 7-208
Second Posting
In Response:

Here we go again. Attempts to change rule language that will inevitably put a CERTIFIED Legal Document Preparer in the cross-hairs of many aggrieved attorneys and/or put us out of business. The proposed rule changes and code language still sounds eerily the same as the suggestions that were made that ended up with a TASK FORCE being commissioned to review the rules and responsibilities of CLDPs. AGAIN,that Task Force did not change any of the language that allows us to prepare the paperwork necessary to assist the general public who are unrepresented, Self-Represented Litigant (“SRL”), however, it is under attack once more.

First, I agree with all other responses and points of view provided in this forum to date, AND I refer to ALL of the initial responses provided when this issue first arose, AGAIN, in July of 2021, and incorporate them as inclusive in this, my current response. In reading other current responding statements, I agree with them and can determine that they all are grounded in day-to-day experience and use in what we do for the SRL.

Please allow me to provide another example of HOW the rule language of “Legal Outcome-Based Research” WILL stop me from effectively assisting others in our area who actively use my services to assist them.
Among other documents prepared by this office in other areas of law, I prepare innumerous amounts of real property deeds and documents to effectively CHANGE title and vesting from one person to another. I assist many SRL’s that are guided to my office by local title companies, local attorneys, judges, and Navajo County official government offices for these purposes. Under the new rule language change, the rules will fully stop me from being an effective document preparer for documents that I currently provide.
Currently, when a SRL comes in to request a deed change (changing someone’s rights to property), I generally ask them if they have a copy or original deed for whatever property they are working with for reference and vesting, or a title company has informed them that something specific needs to be done and they provide a title report. Our office is a referred place to call/go to for many of those services. Most of the time the response regarding a deed is that they do not have one (many long-term property owners). I then ask them if they will allow me to look up their property to find current vesting. I usually do get permission (AND, thankfully, it is public record). Upon RESEARCHING the vesting on property, about 35% of the time, there is something else that is different than what the SRL was expecting to do.

My question now becomes, what is “LEGAL OUTCOME-BASED RESEARCH?” Is this not “Legal Outcome-Based Research” as defined? And if I do not do an allowed search (double-check) on property prior to preparing a document as requested, am I not doing a disservice to the person(s) who has come to me for assistance regarding the changes to their title/vesting? If I blindly agree to preparing a document as that person has requested WITHOUT making sure that I am not creating a huge legal problem with their property, am I not causing harm to others? You all have no idea the problems I have helped fix from other CLDP’s who HAVE NOT DONE any research by doing “Legal Outcome-Based Research.”
To me, if you incorporate this language, “Legal document preparers may not perform legal research for the purpose of providing specific advice, opinions, or recommendations about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options or strategies” the staff has effectively made me INEFFECTIVE as a resource for our community, our title companies, and our official County government offices that I work with directly in correcting so many problems with our rural parcels and real property issues. If our office is not allowed to do “LEGAL OUTCOME-BASED RESEARCH,” even at the permission of the land-owner, my hands have become tied to correctly providing our services. Real property documents and civil procedures have become around 50% of my business requests. This percentage does not include the services provided toward estate planning and property vesting for those purposes. Legal Outcome-Based Research is necessary for those real property transfer documents as well.

This language not only STOPS us from doing simple motions, but also stops everything we do to make sure that we are not causing harm to the general public. ALL RESEARCH can be interpreted as “Legal Outcome-Based Research.” What research is not, or does not have, legal outcome? Research is done to assist in making a decision about everything, and to make sure that the proper statute still applies to whatever basic pleading is being used (after statutory changes to our laws), and/or the proper rule is being followed according to the Arizona Rules of Court in ALL legal procedures (because they change too or I would not receive a new book every year).
The term “Legal Outcome-Based Research” is very broad term and can be interpreted in any way that any attorney wants in order to make complaint against a CLDP. And I will go so far as to state again that my perception from being AT the Task Force meeting and these rule change requests are being designed to stop us from LEGALLY assisting the unrepresented general public in their legal matters when they cannot afford to pay attorneys. And that is a HUGE DISSERVICE to the public. There is really little to no evidence that we are harming others in our current capacities.

In comprehending the newly worded legal term addition and definition, it appears that whomever is attempting these changes is assuming that CLDP’s are focused on family law documents/procedures, and/or civil law documents/procedures, and that this is necessary to stop a CLDP from creating a legal argument that must be defended by either another SRL or an attorney. And it seems that the biggest concern is that creating a document with a stance/legal argument/remedy is what is determined as “the practice of law,” which is what the change is trying to regulate. I do not have any suggestions regarding that being accomplished, however, I do believe that it is only necessary to those on the Board or involved in our program who seem to want only an attorney or a SRL to be qualified to do that. My biggest concern as a practicing CLDP is how this language has the probability of causing harm when there is none due.
 
We are engaged in a profession that we exercise a limited level of the practice of law. How much the Board or Supreme Court wants to restrict us from what we are doing seems to be where the issue lies. If we are restricted greatly (the first submission of language) than it is a huge disservice in continuing the LDP program and puts most of us out of business. If we are restricted minimally, or greater, in order to make some attorneys/judges more comfortable, is it only satisfying those in the industry? Or is it actually doing service to the 85%-90% of unrepresented public in Arizona that needs access to people in our program? Where to draw the line is the issue. My question is then, how much has this come up in the complaint department? Are the complaints generally from attorneys? If they are, why is that not put into perspective? Why is the goal to limit, even more, our level of limited practice of law versus limiting attorneys from filing complaints against CLDPs?
In my years of doing this limited level of the practice of law, I made a choice after I got into this (after hearing from other CLDPs) that I was not going to include any case research in legal pleadings unless a client walked in with that case research in their hands and asked for it to be included. I made that decision for a couple of reasons: 1) To me, it was a clear practice of law to research cases and use case law in an argument that a regular John Doe/Jane Doe would not do; AND 2) I did not want to be accused of and charged with the unauthorized practice of law (still on the A.R.S. books when I started this) as a result of practicing case law, because back then, most attorneys and anyone else in the system made their attitudes clear that they did not accept a CLDP as a valid person/position in the legal system (at least not up here in this rural area). It ended up affording me a much less volatile environment and personal defenses. It actually paid off. Sticking to statutes and the rules of court helped the perception of what I did to NOT BE that of an attorney, and more closely replicating that of a Self-Represented Litigant. THAT is what we do/do not do – we do NOT give advice as to what anyone should or should not do (assimilated from an old CLE on the AZ Bar website-“If it is an answer to a question that could be posed as “Should I do this? Or this?”) and provide legal documents and assistance regarding legal procedure.
Legal document preparation is a practice of law that “effects the rights of an individual.” EVERYTHING that we do requires some level of research and has the possible impact of changing someone’s life. Keeping that in mind when I do what it is that I do as a CLDP has been paramount to all else that gets done in my office because it better be right or I have caused harm! And it cannot be right if I do not do “LEGAL OUTCOME-BASED RESEARCH!”

I will again include Arlene’s Rheinfelder’s quote from the first round in my response:
QUOTE:
“When establishing the legal document preparer program, the purpose was clearly stated: “… the need to protect the public from possible harm caused by nonlawyers providing legal services must be balanced against the public’s need for access to legal services.” ACJA 7-208(C) emphasis added. The program was established to “Protect the public through the certification of legal document preparers to ensure conformance to the highest ethical standards and performance of responsibilities in a professional and competent manner.” ACJA 7-208(C)(1)”

QUOTE:
“After a two-year task force on increasing access to legal services and introducing the LP program, which has yet to have any certificates issued and will only include practitioners in family law at the beginning, we see a proposed change to ACJA 7-208 that will reduce access to legal services. This is at a time when the recently released 2020 Arizona Access to Justice Commission Annual Report states:
"Legal aid agencies remain overwhelmed with demand for civil legal assistance. These agencies face actual or potential loss of funding, threatening not only the timely delivery of legal services but also the capacity to administer an effective volunteer lawyer program. Quick access to useful legal information that can be understood and used by self- represented litigants (“SRLs”) remains a critical need." (p. 3) (March 2021)”

Let us move on to some of the even more specific changes:

ACJA 7-208 F(1)(a)
1. Authorized Services. A certified legal document preparer is authorized to:
“a. Prepare or provide legal documents, without the supervision of an attorney, for a person or entity in “a” legal matter when that person or entity is not represented by an attorney. A legal document preparer shall not draft “documents that require legal outcome-based research, except that a legal document preparer may assist a client with the completion of motions in family court proceedings using the appropriate court approved motions form:”

If I read this correctly, again, it applies strict limits to the documents a CLDP is allowed to do and how they must be done. I, personally, DO NOT USE court supplied template documents. If a document is a hand-written document by a client, my name/CLDP number WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THAT DOCUMENT. All of my documents have been type-written and are computer-generated documents that are locked/secured if transferred by email or printed and signed in front of a Notary Public in order to avoid client manipulation and to avoid any claim from a client that may decide to be vindictive due to loss of a case, changing/placing language that was not used by me, the CLDP. It is a huge liability.
Again I ask, what is the motive for adding this language? Is it solely to restrict the CLDP from creating a “legal argument” that in turn is to be litigated in a legal procedure? I have personally referred people to attorneys when the case has boiled into a problematic litigation, when drafting a full-on legal argument with case law and statutes must be utilized for a judge to make a ruling. I leave the decision to the client with the advice of their attorney.

“d. Conduct legal research necessary to understand general legal principles to assist a client identify and complete a competent legal form or document. A legal document preparer shall not perform legal outcome-based research as defined in this code.”

See all of the above in rebuttal to this paragraph.

ACJA 7-208 K(5)(f)
f. Delinquent Continuing Education $250.00

Is this not a little extreme??? With EVERYTHING going up in price at an extremely fast pace, can we not push this to this level at this time? I get that you want it to hurt, but seriously? Can this be reconsidered at the $100-$150 level?

Any other changes not specifically addressed here generally means that I am not opposed to said proposed changes.

 
I will reiterate from the first proposed change:
What I do not understand is why do we go through the trouble to obtain the schooling and/or experience required, pay fees to get certified, have to pass a lengthy test to prove our competence, and then be required to keep our knowledge base updated with continuing education, if the board that oversees us, and the attorney who is supposed to be defending us, CONTINUES to want to tie our hands and strip us of the exact things that are needed to help the general public?? Prior to the task force being commissioned, it was similar proposed language, stripping us of being able to prepare documents and turning us into glorified space filler-inners. This new proposal, to me, is just a back-door approach to achieving the same thing – start with small things to prohibit and work our way through prohibiting each document over time. Seriously? Who else is seeing this??
WE ARE CERTIFIED. We are doing what we do, under SUPREME COURT REGULATIONS, because we WANT TO HELP those who cannot navigate the system or do not have the means to obtain an attorney AND do it legally.

If you strip us of the tools and the means to help the general public, why would we need to get certified??? I could just be a Notary Public and help people fill in the blanks! Then, the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction over me if I harm the general public. And since THERE IS NO LONGER an UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW statute on the books, I will repeat what a Court Administrative professional/pro tem Justice (who used to be a CLDP) said upon learning that, “Then why would ANYBODY need to get/be certified?”

PLEASE consider, in the attempts to tie our hands, it eliminates the option people have to use the option of a CLDP effectively, which will in turn give less options to the legal system in our state, and we reach a group of people that other options do not reach. With our program, people at least have another affordable option available to them and that they have recourse if we do something that harms them. And in the information I have been able to obtain regarding the history of the program, that percentage has been quite low. What I do believe is that in the world of attorneys, courts, legal systems, that are in major cities and highly populated areas with many options, do NOT understand that to provide assistance to those in a county that is not directly visible to them with the highest poverty levels, do not understand the value of our program. We are a second-home community, mostly, that has only one option for people who serve that type of population, and they have to be seriously indigent in order to receive help from White Mountain Legal Aid, which they are seriously overwhelmed and restricted to the types of cases they can accept due to being overwhelmed. They, too, refer people to my office in certain cases. I receive people sent by judges, attorneys, title companies, Legal Aid, and the general public.


Respectfully, S.L. Caley, AZ CLDP #81026

In response to the “Second Posting” of the proposed ACJA § 7-208 rule change, I comment as follows:

I reaffirm my initial objection to these proposed rule changes because they continue to offer a resolution to a problem that does NOT actually exist. Neither the Board of Nonlawyer Legal Service Providers or division staff have provided any justification as to why such drastic changes to the rules regulating Legal Document Preparers (“LDP”) are warranted.

One would assume that such changes are in response to a multitude of complaints filed by the public concerning substandard work product being produced by LDPs. However, my firsthand observation of multiple board meetings over the last 3 years would strongly contradict that assumption. The number of public complaints that I have seen the Board address over the years has been minimal and of those even less were considered actionable. Most often it seems that the complaints are made by attorneys or judges who allege that an LDP committed an unauthorized practice of law and had nothing to do with actual harm caused consumer.

If these proposed changes are in response to the recommendations of the Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services, then I believe they are in direct conflict with the task force’s stated mission to increase the public’s access to legal services.

My first specific objection to this draft is the addition of the “legal outcome-based research” definition as outlined in Section A because it’s far too restrictive. How do you expect an LDP to prepare a competent legal document for a consumer when the LDP is restricted from doing the necessary research to ensure that the document is prepared correctly? How does this serve the public who is paying for such service?

Also, if these proposed changes are in response to the recommendations of the task force, then I ask the Court and/or Board to seriously consider Hon. Peter B. Swann’s opinion as it relates to legal research and advice, which states as follows:

“Any person is free to conduct legal research, and I cannot see how the Court can lawfully prohibit such research. But even if a prohibition were constitutionally possible, where is the public good in such a proposal? The Court has already created the LDP tier of practitioners, and any notion that they do not provide legal advice is folly. Legal advice is inherent in any aspect of the practice of law, and a LDP cannot properly fill out a form or prepare an original document without creating legal consequences.
It is essential, if we are to have such a tier in Arizona, that LDPs be empowered to provide the best service possible to clients. An uninformed LDP is an ineffective or even dangerous LDP, and I submit that LDPs should face no restrictions on research activities. If we cannot trust LDPs to conduct legal research, then we should not allow them to practice law in any form. But I have no reason to believe that LDPs would not be able to conduct legal research appropriately as long as the services they offer do not exceed the scope authorized by the code. I would therefore delete the restriction…”

Although Judge Swann appears to not be in favor of the LDP program, he is absolutely right about this, and he does an excellent job of outlining the ridiculousness of restricting an LDP’s ability to perform research.

My second specific objection to this draft is the change of “any legal matter” to “a legal matter” in Section F under Authorized Services, paragraph a. The section goes on to restrict the LDP from preparing documents that require legal outcome-based research which is counterproductive and completely unnecessary.
The existing rules already outline two crucial restrictions:

1) A legal document preparer shall accept only those assignments for which the legal document preparer’s level of competence will result in the preparation of an accurate document; and

2) A legal document preparer shall not provide any kind of advice, opinion, or recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, or strategies.

Why aren’t those regulations enough? They are clear and straight forward, and if an LDP is working beyond their individual skill level or offering more than legal information to a client, then the Board should address the problem specifically with the offending LDP as they do now.

The whole goal of LDP program is to increase the public’s access to justice while also protecting them from incompetent practitioners. The proposed rule changes to ACJA § 7-208 do the exact opposite and essentially gut a highly successful program which provides the public with a beneficial legal resource that it wouldn’t otherwise have access to. We should be looking for ways to expand the LDP program so that more people may be helped instead of seeking to further restrict it.

Do not punish the people of Arizona who rely on LDPs as a vital resource. The people who will be most harmed by these rule changes are those who cannot afford an attorney, but also do not qualify for free legal aid even if they live in an area where such resources are available.

If the Court and/or Board of Nonlawyer Legal Service Providers are interested in improving the Certified Legal Document Program, then I suggest creating a task force or committee that is specifically charged with improving the program but LDPs should be included as members of the committee so that they may be part of the conversation.

Regardless of future opportunities to meet the legal needs of the public, these proposed rule changes are not the answer and should be rejected outright.

Respectfully,

Melissa Hill, AZCLDP 81696

I am not a stupid person. I’m a college graduate, have worked in the legal profession for nearly 40 years, and have owned and operated my LDP firm, Divorce Packet Processing, for almost 35. I was also appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court to help draft the rules that now govern LDP’s. But I’m not clear as to what this proposed code change says. Or, more so, is trying to accomplish. Or why.

It seems this change simply repeats what our code already says: that an LDP “may not provide any kind of specific advice, opinion, or recommendation to a person or entity about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options or strategies”. So it seems the proposed code change, by literally reiterating what’s already in the code, is simply noting that this applies to legal outcome-based research. But what research in the legal profession is not legal-outcome based?

And an LDP must do research, including what the current laws are (those on the books and thus factual in nature), case law (what’s not on the books yet so more general) and procedures (which often are nowhere to be found anywhere in writing but the courts just do. And then change. And change again). Even attending a CLE is doing research. Which is something we have to do. So to do our job properly, we must do research. And, again, what research in the legal profession is NOT legal outcome-based?

So is this change saying that research cannot be with the intent of supporting a specific outcome? As the proposal states “prohibits applying that research to the facts of a client’s case to advocate for an outcome”. But not only MUST we stick to the facts, but why else would anyone have a case other than to advocate for an outcome?

Is this change saying you shouldn’t show research that only supports one side? Well, that’s basically saying don’t do a poor job of researching. And seems doing a poor job is already addressed in the code.

Is this change saying you can’t do research specific for a specific client? Well, that would be wrong. As that wouldn’t allow us to do our job properly. We may start out in this profession knowing enough to become certified, but the truth is few know everything. So when a client comes to us about an issue we’re not familiar with, we must research it. And even for those who do know everything (or think they do), things change. So we must conduct research to keep current with the law. And often, while we know there may have been changes in a certain area, we don’t spend the time to research it until a client comes in with a situation in that area. So, again, to do our job properly, we then must research it.

An example of this is that while the child support guidelines recently changed as to how spousal maintenance is considered, I’ve yet to research how it’s changed. But eventually, when a client comes to me who wants to pay spousal maintenance, I’ll have to do so. And I’ll be “applying that research to the facts of a client’s case to advocate for an outcome”. But I must do that to do my job properly.

Does this change mean we can’t be the first to learn something? And we have to wait for it to become rule or common knowledge? As we can’t. As LDPs, we file motions on a regular basis to help our clients get their words to a judge. And especially in family law, with things regularly changing and/or people with unique situations, we have to research the latest information and then present it to the court. And often we’re first to do so, even before attorneys, because we run into these things more often. Simply because we deal with more people than they do.

Several years ago I had a client who was having trouble getting her husband served. And rather than saying, sorry, nothing I can do, I did some research. I called several attorneys, spoke to people in other counties, and I found that some judges had allowed service through email and even social media. After I let my client know, we prepared a motion asking she be allowed to serve through Facebook Messenger. And the motion was granted. This was years ago and while not on the books yet, it’s now allowed on a regular basis. So it’s now general legal information. But back when I researched it (or for those not aware of this option and now research it), it’s applying research to the facts of a client’s case to advocate for an outcome. Which would be prohibited under the proposed change.

I also had a client who had a judge refuse a postal receipt as proof of service because it was signed by someone besides the other party. This was in the early days of the pandemic and after researching the matter, I found that postal carriers were no longer allowed to hand a person the receipt to sign. And instead signed for the person with their own name. Which is why the judge had refused the postal receipt. After presenting this research to my client, we filed a motion with the judge to allow the mail carrier’s signature. In addition, I copied it to the presiding judge. And not only was the motion granted, but my research is posted almost verbatim on the court website. So it’s now general legal information. Did I conduct legal outcome-based research and then apply it to the facts of a client’s case to advocate for an outcome? Yes. Which would violate the proposed change. But was I providing “specific legal advice, opinion or recommendation”? No, because the research I found was applicable to others. Thus, falling under the category of “general legal information”.

Granted, it is a fine line as to what is information and what is advice. We recognized this when we wrote the code. The committee (consisting of both attorneys and non-attorneys) reviewed numerous scenarios. And all were in agreement which ones crossed that line. And thus agreed where that line was. But when it came to defining it in the code, it was difficult to put into words. And that’s why we wrote the code as it is, ie: allowing the providing of both general legal information and factual information but not specific advice, opinion or recommendation. And we provided for a board that would consist of both attorneys and LDPs. As we trusted that, just like we knew where that line was, so would they.
And it seems to be working. As there doesn’t seem to be a high volume of complaints about people crossing that line. So not sure why this change is even being proposed. Is there a high volume of LDPs conducting research that crosses the line? I don’t think so. Is there a reason to try to attempt to further define the above line? I don’t think so. And even if there were, this proposed change is a very poor attempt to do so. As, again, I’m not stupid, and I don’t understand it.

In summary, the proposed change is both unnecessary and unclear. With its room for wide interpretation, it could easily put our profession and, more so, the community at large at risk. The services LDPs presently provide (all with little or no problems) are much needed. Were this proposed change allowed, we would no longer be able to serve the public as we presently do. Which would cause far, far, far more harm than any alleged issues those proposing this change may have concerns about.

Have also attached my response as a word document, as may be easier to read.
Sincerely,
Linda Seger
AZCLDP #80290

Response to “Second Posting”
ACJA § 7-208 rule change

The purpose of this very successful program was created from the fact that many people in our state are deprived of the legal system simply because they are unable to afford an attorney to prepare documents that include legal research. They are deprived of justice because of a lack of money or the ability to write documents based on legal research to be heard in our justice system. Our civil society is held together by laws supported by legal research. If citizens are deprived of due process, then they are forced to become a law unto themselves or become the prey of those with money.

What is the definition of “legal outcome-based research?” I had no idea after reading the proposed change. Legal outcome-base research in our judicial system made as much sense as drawing square-based circles. Looking for clarity, I did a limited amount of legal research.

Result 1: “Legal Outcome-Based Research” Google:
Outcome Based Jurisprudence by Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP
“There are two ways for a court to decide a case. It can hear the facts, research the law and arrive at a conclusion based on that process. Using this method, the court has no idea how the case will turn out until the process plays itself out. In my naïve world, I like to think this is how it is supposed to work. “
“The other method is for the court to determine in advance what it wants the result to be and then find a way to get there. I call this “outcome based” jurisprudence. And I hate it. It is a type of “ends justifies the means” cynical approach to the law.”
(https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=67863d03-32c3-443a-ba27-b76910cd2404)

Then I did some general word research:

Result 2: “Outcome-Based Research” Google: Simply Educate Me website revealed:
”The truth is, outcome-based research is a wordplay from outcome-based education.”
“Outcome-based research starts at the goal, then works back to identify the steps required to achieve the pre-set goal.”
(https://simplyeducate.me/2015/08/02/outcome-based-research/)

Results 3: “Outcome-Based Research” Google:
“Outcomes research is a broad umbrella term without a consistent definition.”
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12603584/)

Since “Outcome Research” is without a consistent definition and “outcome based” jurisprudence is when the court determines the case prior to hearing the facts, it is no wonder the definition is difficult if not impossible to understand.
Why would anyone base a legal document on “legal outcome-based research?”

Legal Research is a different matter. LDPs routinely research laws, proper forms, court rules, court locations, case history and other important facts to educate clients about their case. This is far from advice or opinion. It is simply providing factual information based on the law. The client uses that information to form their own opinion on what to do. If they need help forming an opinion, they need an attorney.

When a definition is not clear, concise, and usable, it could be defined as “worthless.” However, if the goal is confusion designed to trap someone doing something legally right and then define the act as being wrong it could have nefarious value. Based on many of the comments presented, this appears to be the motivation. It reminds me of a quote:
Henry David Thoreau once stated, “Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.”

The proposed change will mean a trained and qualified Legal Document Preparer will no longer be unable to “draft substantive legal motions, supporting memoranda, or appellate briefs that a client might possibly use in their case to advocate for a proper outcome in their matter before the court.” The sole reason given for the change is because, “Legal outcome-based research is required to draft” said document. That client advocating for his case is likely unable to afford an attorney. No money - No Justice

Since the only thing clear about the proposed “Definition” is simply that it is not clear and the meaning is without meaning perhaps it would be wise not to adopt it. This is a poorly written and dangerous change in the rules that benefits no one and unjustifiably harms the public. The disadvantaged will be deprived of the legal system. It will only make our legal system in Arizona the “best that money can buy.” Is that what you really want?

THE PROPOSED CHANGES BEFORE THIS BOARD ARE VERY MISLEADING:

1. The proposed definition change in Section 7-208(A) is not a new definition of “Legal outcome-based research.” It seems to be a convoluted prohibition under the thin veil of a definition to make it wrong for a “Legal Document Preparer” to prepare legal documents for disadvantaged people. Therefore, disadvantaged people will no longer have access to the legal system.

2. Why not just remove a few words from the current definition to make the intent clear:
“Legal Document Preparer” means secretarial or receptionist service without the supervision of an attorney.


Rick Rose
AZCLDP # #81714

Attached please see the Arizona Association of Independent Paralegals' Response to the Second Posting, the AAIP's Cover Letter for said Response, the Maricopa County Superior Court 2019 Annual Report, and the Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services' October 4, 2019 Report and Recommendations for your reference.

Have also attached my response as a word document, as may be easier to read.
Sincerely,
Linda Seger
AZCLDP #80290

I, Donald F. Steward, submit this public comment in opposition to the proposed amendments to ACJA Section 7-208. I am informed that the proposed amendments are based upon recommendations set forth in the October 4, 2019 “Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services Report and Recommendations (hereinafter “the report”)". With all due respect, the relevant portion of the report reflects a misinterpretation and mischaracterization of LDP authorized services and the best practices manner in which certain services are provided to consumers. The report further shows a lack of understanding or a discounting of the role a self-represented consumer plays in receiving LDP services and providing direction to the LDP.

Said proposed amendments would prohibit an LDP from preparing substantive legal motions, supporting memorandum, appellant briefs, and from preparing a legal document which applies legal research to the facts of a case. The report’s stated rational for the proposed amendments are that there is a purported “confusion” in the LDP community about the scope of documents LDPs can complete. The apparent underlying rational is that such services were not ever contemplated to be authorized under ACJA Section 7-208, nor can they be provided in compliance with the provisions set forth in ACJA Section 7-208. These presumptions or assertions, as the case may be, are false. The proposed amendments are wholly unwarranted and would substantially reduce the scope and quality of low-cost legal services available to the general public effectively baring thousands of low-income consumers each year from access to justice and their legal needs in general. In addition, the restrictions and prohibitions set forth in the proposed amendments, if enacted, would force many hard-working certified legal document preparers out of business who will no longer be able to offer the services they have built their businesses around.

My opposition is further based upon the following facts and grounds.

MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES: In 2002, I served on the Arizona Supreme Court Ad hoc committee which drafted ACJA 7-208. I was intimately involved in constructing the language of the code, including 7-208 (F), which details the “Authorized Services” a certified legal document preparer may offer the general public. Thereafter, I was honored to serve on the first Board of Legal Document Preparers from 2003 to 2006, where we further developed the program, its policies, and procedures. I have also been a Certified Legal Document Preparer since the inception of the program and have served for many years as an officer of the Arizona Association of Independent Paralegals, the state’s largest professional association for LDPs.

AN LDP’S CURRENT AUTHORITY: Simply stated, LDPs are authorized to engage in a limited authority to practice law as it relates to the preparation of legal documents for and on behalf of a consumer for any legal purpose. The ACJA § 7-208(F)(1), titled “Authorized Services”, states that “A certified legal document preparer is authorized to: (1) Prepare or provide legal documents, without the supervision of an attorney, for an entity or member of the public in any legal matter when that entity or person is not represented by an attorney.” The LDP code of conduct, which describes LDP conduct in providing such services, also provides insight and clarification as to the scope of LDP services and intent of the program. For instance, the LDP code requires in part an LDP “shall respect and comply with the laws” (ACJA § 7-208(J)(1)(a)), “keep abreast of current developments in the law as they relate to legal document preparation, ACJA § 7-208(J)(2)(d), “provide complete documents to a consumer” and “meet document preparation deadlines in accordance with rules, statutes, court orders, or agreement with the parties” ACJA § 7-208(J)(4)(a). The LDP Code further requires LDPs “perform all duties and discharge all obligations in accordance with applicable laws, rules, or court orders” ACJA § 7-208(J)(5)(a), and that LDPs only accept assignments which “will result in an accurate document” ACJA § 7-208(J)(4)(b).

AN LDP’S ABILITY TO PREPARE SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL MOTIONS, SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM AND APPELLATE BRIEFS WAS THOROUGHLY VETED BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE AND MULTIPLE COURT COMMITTEES

ACJA § 7-208 is the result of the hard work of the original ad hoc committee and numerous other committees that reviewed and approved § 7-208. The ad hoc committee consisted of numerous members of the Arizona State Bar, including the President of the Bar at the time, numerous attorneys with the Arizona Supreme Court, private attorneys, and several “independent paralegals”, including myself, whom would later be some of the first certificate holders. The ad hoc\ drafting committee, specifically contemplated, analyzed, and discussed the ability of document preparers to prepare motions, memorandums and appellate briefs, including whether such services could be offered in a manner consistent with the rules which would become § 7-208. After carefully considering these and other relevant issues, the ad hoc committee voted UNANIMOUSLY to approve these provisions. Prior to the vote, the State Bar Board of Governors UNANIMOUSLY voted to authorize its members who were representing the Bar on the ad hoc committee to vote in favor of approval. In addition, the provisions of § 7-208 referred to above went through a rigorous scrutiny and approval process with several committees, including the Committee on Limited Jurisdiction Courts, the Committee on the Superior Court, and The Arizona Judicial Council, all of which UNANIMOUSLY approved these provisions. It should be noted that among other considerations, each of these committees specifically contemplated, analyzed, and discussed the ability of document preparers to prepare motions, memorandums and appellate briefs, including whether such services could be offered in a manner consistent within the court rules. Finally, the Arizona Supreme Court Justices reviewed and approved UNANIMOUSLY, the same provisions referred to above, as they are currently written.

Again, despite the extensive and thorough vetting of this issue, eighteen years later, these proposed changes are being offered without any discussion or sufficient analysis regarding the grounds or basis which may justify the changes. There is in fact no justification or reasons in the interest of the LDP program or the public to approve the proposed changes, rather, if approved they will have a significantly negative impact on the public and the LDP program.

THE TASK FORCE ON THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES LACKED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ACT ON

To be clear, I appreciate and largely support the hard work of the Task Force. However, for unknown reasons, as to the issues at hand, the report commentary reflects a significant lack of information and misunderstanding of the manner in which LDPs provide services to consumers and the role of the consumer in accepting LDP services and providing instruction and direction to an LDP. I believe it shocking that not one LDP was appointed to the Task Force that contemplated in part such dramatic changes to the LDP program. I personally attended many of the Task force meetings, as did several other LDPs. While I appreciated that a few LDPs, including myself, were periodically allowed and even invited to make comments during meetings, that is vastly different than being a participating member of the committee. Moreover, LDP commentary I witnessed during various task force meetings is not reflected at all in the relevant portions of the report. On the contrary, the information in the relevant portion of the report in large contradicts information provided by LDPs. It is also my impression that most members of the Task Force were completely unfamiliar with the LDP program, nor did they have any information about the scope and volume of services LDPs provide the public and therefore could not assess the impact making significant changes to the program may have on the public.

The report references there is “some confusion as to the scope of documents LDPs can complete”. There is no indication as to where that opinion or presumption arises from. I acknowledge the various statements in the report that “LDP’s cannot give legal advice”, but I deny the presumption that substantive legal motions and supporting memorandums cannot be prepared for consumers under the current previsions of 7-208. As stated above, while the original ad hoc committee and the various other committees that approved 7-208 discussed and thoroughly analyzed this issue, apparently there has been a loss of understanding over the years. My impression is that a critical factor that is not considered in the Task Force’s analysis of this matter is the role, responsibility, and ability of the self-represented consumer. The interactions and general collaboration between an LDP and a consumer substantially differs from an attorney client relationship. An LDP can prepare and provide the consumer with various templates, general legal information, options, and strategies, which along with the consumer’s existing resources, knowledge and skills, enables the consumer to provide specific direction in preparing any legal document, including those types of documents which are the subject of the proposed changes to 7-208. The Task Force Report promotes conflicting messages, on one hand rightfully stating LDP services should conform to the consumers instructions and decisions, and then in contrast implying that the consumer is a passive recipient of LDP services. To illustrate this point, the Task force report makes statements which presumes a legal document which contains an application of research to the facts of a consumer’s case would not be drafted at the specific direction of the consumer. What evidence is there to support that presumption? Again, the report shows a lack of understanding about how LDP services are provided to consumers. At a minimum Certification and licensing should have a full understanding about how services are provided before taking action to make changes.

APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL IMPACT THOUSANDS OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS EACH YEAR. Prohibiting the preparation of substantive motions, memorandum, and appellate briefs will deprive self-represented litigants from access to justice. While I am not aware of any formal surveys assessing the volume of such work document preparers regularly performed for the general public, I offer the following perspective on the negative impact of prohibiting such work. For twenty-five years, I owned and operated an LDP business, which annually served 800 to 1200 customers in a broad scope of legal matters, including civil, family, probate, business, and estate planning related matters. I estimate assisting 150 to 200 customers per year with various motions, mostly in civil or family court matters. Thus, since the inception of the program, I have prepared close to 3000 motions for consumers. Moreover, I am aware of numerous LDP businesses who do a substantially larger volume of such work for consumers on an annual basis. I estimate LDPs have done tens of thousands of substantive legal motions for consumers since the inception of the LDP program. Such services are in clear demand by the public and eliminating them for no reason does nothing but sever a consumer’s access to justice. In view of the above, I urge the court to reject the proposed changes to § 7-208.

APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL FINANCIALLY IMPACT A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE LDP COMMUNITY
The court should also consider the devastating impact the proposed amendments will have on many, LDPs who have a significant portion of their revenue come from preparing motions, memorandum, and appellate briefs. LDP often operate on a shoestring budget and eliminating these services may cause many LDPs to go out of business, or have to raise prices on other services, all of which ultimately negatively impacts the consumer.

PROPOSED CHANGES REQUIRING “PROFESSIONALISM TRAINING COURSE” IS WITHOUT BASIS AND UNECESSARILY BURDENSOME

To be clear, this certificate holder has no issue with division staff providing the option of a training course on the role and responsibilities of the certified legal document preparer. However, requiring an LDP to do so seems to be entirely unnecessary and burdensome to the certificate holder who has just been determined by the program to be fully qualified for certification and having passed the required examination. It seems to be an upside-down approach to provide training on a subject after the certificate holder has been determined to be sufficiently knowledgeable, actually an expert, on the role and responsibilities of being a certified legal document preparer. It is particularly unnecessary for LDPs who have been practicing for many years, some of which for almost two decades. In addition, there are numerous opportunities for LDPs to take seminars, webinars, and resources for self-study on the subject and related ethics issues, which are available to the LDP community by instructors who are experienced LDPs as well as by attorneys. While in this certificate holder’s opinion the course is not needed, at least it should not be required. Again, the course is being proposed with no information offered as to need or potential benefits to the LDP community or the public.


Respectfully submitted this 14th day of January 2021

Donald F. Steward, AZCLDP #80339

Recently the Supreme Court created a task force for the purpose of exploring ways in which the Court could improve the public’s access to the court system. With the exception of some minor administrative updates, this proposed rule change to ACJA 7-208 does exactly the opposite.
Firstly, by restricting the ability of CDLP’s to perform legal research, the rule change makes it unreasonably difficult for the layperson to find the information to competently prepare leading pleadings and other documents. CLDP’s are already restricted from providing legal advice in connection with the research they might perform, but the information they might provide is invaluable to those who do not have access to the resources to competently preform the research. Additionally, the language contradicts other provisions of 7-208 by prohibiting the CLDP’s ability to provide legal information and options, a service that is explicitly allowed in 7-208. By allowing CLDP’s to preform legal research, the public has greater access to the legal information that all should be entitled to, rather than be limited to the only those who can afford an attorney.
The rule change proposes a restriction on CLDP’s preparing “substantive motions”. The unconstitutionally vague language would leave CLDP’s open to constant complaints by those who oppose the program and would ultimately reduce access to the legal system as CLDP’s withdraw from that practice because of the associated liability. The proposed changes would restrict CLDP to the usage of “court approved forms”. There are no “court approved” forms. There are procedural rules and statutes which govern the content of pleadings and motions, but other that information sheets, there are no court approved forms. The court provides forms in the Self-Service Center but those are neither required or “approved”. Additionally, those forms are often insufficient based on the requirements of a petitioner.
Lastly, no justification for the rule change has been provided and notice to the interested parties has been insufficient. There is no evidence that CLDP’s have harmed the public in any way which would justify the proposed restrictions. The restrictions would do nothing except to further limit the public’s access to competent legal assistance.