Aaron Nash
Director, Certification & Licensing Division
Arizona Supreme Court and Administrative Office of the Courts
1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 104
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-452-3378
[email protected] Comment deadline is November 24, 2023
With nearly three years of Legal Paraprofessional program operational experience to draw from, the Certification and Licensing Division (Division) proposes a series of modifications to Arizona Code of Judicial administration (ACJA) § 7-210. Highlights of the proposed changes follow.
Technical edits:
Proposed changes include technical edits intended to conform to other regulatory sections. Examples include changing “shall” to “may” or “must;” condensing phrases for brevity, clarity, or plain English; and renaming subsection headings.
Lessons learned:
Proposed changes reflect incorporating lessons learned. Examples include adding “law clerk” to the professions that regularly receive “substantive law-related experience” and addressing gaps in education qualifications, such as accredited and qualifying law degrees.
Given Legal Paraprofessionals’ scope of practice, inserting “legal paraprofessional” in appropriate sections where “lawyer” or “attorney” is referenced throughout multiple practice area rules of procedure would be a daunting and time-consuming effort. While there may come a time for that project, the proposal adds a subsection addressing this issue broadly with the requirement to “[c]omply with the Arizona Rules of Procedure governing the scope of the legal paraprofessional’s authorized practice are, but, where “lawyer,” “attorney,” or other equivalent words are used, substitute “legal paraprofessional” for any procedural rule governing conduct within the legal paraprofessional’s scope of practice…”
Clarification:
Proposed changes provide clarity in application of the code. For example, the existing ACJA refers to licenses, endorsements, and certifications. Because the Division uses “certification” in a different way in other programs, the proposal refers to “authorized practice areas” rather than endorsements and certifications.
Rather than referring generally to character and fitness requirements, the proposal incorporates specific character and fitness requirements.
Rather than refer generally to “one year of substantive law-related experience,” the proposal establishes a bright line minimum experience qualification of hours of within a timebound range before applying for licensure and reflects the combinations of education and experience applicable to different tracks of qualification.