Recommended changes in fee schedule for lawyers over 70 years of age [Wm. M. Waldrom, Pro Se]

Proposed Changes in Bar Dues and MCLE [Michael L. Rubin, Pro Se]

Comment on Proposed Changes to Rule 45 [Michelle Paz Soldan, Eyphemia Stamos Theodore, Alice Casey, Pro Se]

Re: Petition to Amend State Bar Rules on Membership Catergories - Over 70 and Retired [Felecia F. Stitcher]

Re: State Bar of Arizona Membership Categories - Over 70 years old [Joseph V Moschetti]

Re: Petition to Amend Rules 32(c) and 64(f), Rules of the Supreme Court Petition Number R-05-0034 [Patrick E. Eldridge]

Re: Opposition to Petition # R-05-0034 (State Bar of Arizona) [Myles C. Stewart]

Re: Proposed Changes in Rules Relating to Senior State Bar Members [Frank E. Dickey, Jr.]

Comment on Proposed Changes to Rules 32(c), 45 and 64(f); R-05-0034 [David D. Dodge]

Re: Proposed Amendments to Rules 32, 45, and 64; Comments on [Richard E. Norling]

Re: State Bar Petition to Amend Rules 32(c), 45 and 64(f), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court [James D. V. Stevenson]

[Comments] Re: Petition R-05-0034 - Comments [Senior Lawyers of Arizona - Tucson by Joana Diamos] [for 23 members]

[Comments] Re: Proposal R-05-0034 [Gary B. Larson, Guy M. Buckley, Ronald G. Compton, Jr.]

[Comments] Re: Petition R-05-0034 Comments [W. Edward Morgan]

[Comments] Re: Petition R-05-0034 [Regula Case] [Filed May 4, 2006]

Attached comment is in opposition to proposed amendment to Rule 45.

Commenter’s Name: Frank L. Migray

Mailing Address: 717 W. Palm Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Phone Number: 602-258-5225
602-510-8726 (Cell)

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Bar Number: 003441 (Inactive)

[Comment] [James C. Mitchell]

[Motion and Request] [Frank Lewis, Begam, Lewis & Marks]

Judy Jacobi, Esq.
1441 E. Edison Street
Tucson, AZ 85719
Bar No. 012498

May 18, 2006


Honorable Arizona Supreme Court Justices
1501 W. Washington Street, 4th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona
85007-3329

RE: Comment on Petition to Amend Rules 32(c), 45, and 64(f), ARIZONA RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT

Dear Honorable Arizona Supreme Court Justices:

After considering proposed changes to State Bar of Arizona membership requirements, I urge the Arizona Supreme Court to reject proposed dues changes to the “Inactive” category. The additional requirement to complete current year MCLE plus up to two additional years preceding activation is sensible since inactive members are literally out of practice.

My objection is to the proposed requirement to pay differences in dues for the current year plus the difference in dues for up to two years immediately preceding reactivation. An attorney may be inactive for many reasons including illness, family/personal crisis, and difficulty finding employment. These individuals are likely experiencing financial strain attendant to the reason for their inactive status. While some inactive attorneys may have another profession or are otherwise monetarily stable, less fortunate attorneys should not be further financially burdened by paying additional dues for up to two years preceding reactivation. Unlike the proposed additional MCLE requirement, charging back dues for a lawyer who was not in practice defies reason. Paying current dues plus the cost of up to two years back MCLE is challenging enough for anyone out of work. The bar should not penalize these lawyers.

Judy Jacobi
Inactive Arizona Attorney

Commenter’s Name: Frank L. Migray

Mailing Address: 717 W. Palm Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Phone Number: 602-258-5225
602-510-8726 (Cell)

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Bar Number: 003441 (Inactive)

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

To the Arizona Supreme Court:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Keltner #1169

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

[Comment] [Edwin V. Matney]

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

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

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

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

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