Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 29 Jan 2018 03:19 PM by  Ralph Adams
R-18-0024 Rule 64(f)(1)(B), Ariz.R.S.Ct.
 0 Replies
Author Messages
Ralph Adams
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

29 Jan 2018 03:19 PM
    Ralph Adams, 015599
    520 East Portland Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    (602) 258-3542

    Would clarify the language of Rule 64(f)(1)(B), Ariz.R.S.Ct. and eliminate reference to Bar Counsel rendering findings re the need to show rehabilitation.

    Applicants for reinstatement who have been suspended from the practice of law for more than six months for disciplinary reasons must demonstrate fitness, competence and rehabilitation. A hearing is required under these circumstances. Hearings are also required for attorneys who have been summarily suspended by the Board of Governors for more than two years for failure to pay dues or maintain MCLE. However, attorneys who are summarily suspended have not generally demonstrated any issue, trait or condition from which to be"rehabilitated." Recognizing this fact, the rule was amended on January 1, 2017 to eliminate the need to demonstrate rehabilitation in such cases.

    The current rule as amended is, however, problematic in that it suggests that Bar Counsel have authority to make “findings” requiring an applicant to demonstrate rehabilitation in such a case. The Rules of the Supreme Court do not convey upon Bar Counsel the authority to make findings. Moreover, such findings would violate applicants' due process rights. In addition, applicants must demonstrate "fitness" so there is no need for Bar Counsel to make such findings regarding rehabilitation.

    This Petition seeks to clarify the language of the rule and eliminate the reference to Bar Counsel rendering findings regarding an applicant's need to demonstrate rehabilitation.

    FILED 01-29-2018