FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to SACrtDocs@courts.az.gov.


News:  We have corrected an error that prevented users from accessing some current criminal rules via Westlaw.



Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules
                


Welcome!

This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 

CONTACT INFORMATION:

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU SUBMIT ALL YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION WHEN SUBMITTING A RULE PETITION AND/OR COMMENTS.  OTHERWISE, YOUR SUBMISSION MAY BE REJECTED AND WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ADVISE YOU AS TO WHY. 

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 27 Feb 2020 05:23 PM by  Jeffrey Marks
R-20-0012 PETITION TO PERMANENTLY ADOPT RULES FOR THE FAST TRIAL AND ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION PROGRAM ("FASTAR")
 1 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
Jennifer Thorson
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
09 Jan 2020 03:37 PM
    Hon. Kyle Bryson, Petitioner
    Presiding Judge
    Superior Court of Arizona in Pima County
    110 W. Congress St.
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    520-724-4215
    presidingjudge@sc.pima.gov

    Would permanently adopt the Rules for the Fast Trial and Alternative Resolution Program (“FASTAR”), with modifications.

    Would permanently adopt and amend the Rules for the Fast Trial and Alternative Resolution Program

    Filed January 9, 2020.

    Comment must be submitted on or before May 1, 2020.

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2020.
    Attachments
    Jeffrey Marks
    New Member
    Posts:3 New Member

    --
    27 Feb 2020 05:23 PM
    While I have no problem with moving civil cases right along, but I believe that FASTSTAR is one of the worst programs ever conceived during my forty two years of practicing law in Tucson. In fact, I have yet to speak with a Tucson or Phoenix lawyer who does not hold FASTSTAR in contempt . When FASTSTAR was first proposed, the presenting judges said it was a way to force trial experience upon new lawyers since the number of civil trials was constantly falling. What concerns me is that jurors are being forcefully summoned to court so that young lawyers can gain experience at the expense of the captive, inconvenienced, and poorly compensated jurors. If lack of trial experience were a pressing issue, a lawyer could realize that fact for himself or herself and go to continuing ed courses, become a prosecutor or public defender, or take on court appointed cases. If the general public got word that they were being involuntarily forced to court to be a teaching tool, I am sure the outrage would be well heard. Also, if a lawyer already has significant trial experience, why must he or she be forced into a program to give him or her more experience? Of course, on the other hand, if a lawyer determines a case should truly be in arbitration and that lawyer happens to represent the Plaintiff, it is draconian to have a penalty that the Plaintiff loses the right to a trial de novo while it is preserved for the defense. For example, not every civil case, such as a collection matter, needs to be set for a FASTAR jury trial when a simple arbitration would work, coupled with the safety net of a trial de novo. Forcing cases out of arbitration also flies in opposition to the fact that using ADR instead of routine court trials is the public policy of Arizona. A further concern is allowing small cases which should be in Justice Court into the realm of Superior Court. In a nutshell, the resolution to this problem that minimally exists, is to expedite smaller Superior Court cases but let the lawyers decided if the matter should go before an arbitrator or jury, and allow for trials de novo.
    Jeffrey A. Marks
    4773 E. Camp Lowell Drive
    Tucson, AZ 85712
    State Bar No. 005670
    You are not authorized to post a reply.