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.




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. 

PLEASE READ - CONTACT INFORMATION: 

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU SUBMIT ALL YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION WHEN SUBMITTING A RULE PETITION OR COMMENT.  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 02 Jun 2020 08:28 AM by  Yolanda Fox
R-20-0030 Petition to Amend Rule 42, of Supreme Court Rules, ERs 7.1 through 7.5
 3 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Jennifer Albright
New Member
Posts:3 New Member

--
11 Jan 2020 09:32 PM
    Dave Byers
    Executive Director, Administrative Office of Courts
    Member, Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services
    State Courts Building
    1501 West Washington
    Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    Telephone: (602) 452-3301
    Projects2@courts.az.gov

    The proposed amendments address lawyer advertising and incorporate many of the 2018 ABA Model Rule amendments as recommended by the Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services. The proposed amendments eliminate or amend ethical rules that impede lawyers’ ability to provide cost-effective legal services. The proposed amendments to these ethical rules would retain the rules’ primary regulatory mandate of refraining from making false and misleading communications; set forth the requirements for who may identify themselves as a “certified specialist” in an area of law; maintain reasonable restrictions on direct solicitation of specific potential clients; and eliminate obsolete and anti-competitive provisions that unreasonably restrict the dissemination of truthful advertising.

    Would amend the Ethical Rules regarding lawyer advertising, solicitation, and referral

    FILED: January 11, 2020

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

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2020.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend Rule 42, of the Supreme Court Rules, ERs 7.1 to 7.5 = ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2021.



    Attachments
    State Bar of Arizona
    New Member
    Posts:88 New Member

    --
    30 Mar 2020 03:50 PM
    The State Bar of Arizona respectfully asks that the comment period for this Petition and Petition R-20-0034 be aligned, providing a minimum deadline extension of May 26, 2020. Further, on behalf of staff and its constituency, the State Bar requests a 60-day enlargement of time on both of these Task Force Petitions, or more as circumstances related to COVID-19 may warrant. This request for extension is made based on 1) the complexity of the proposed rule changes and associated ACJA code provisions, including still TBD portions, 2) stakeholder desire to provide meaningful input to the Court, and 3) curtailed meetings and shifted priorities during the prior and coming weeks due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Lisa M. Panahi, Bar No. 023421
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
    (602) 340-7236
    patricia.seguin@staff.azbar.org
    George Riemer
    New Member
    Posts:3 New Member

    --
    23 Apr 2020 12:11 PM
    Deletion of ER 7.2(b)

    The task force has recommended that the rule of professional conduct that prevents a lawyer from giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services be deleted. The argument is advanced that this rule is honored more in the breach than the observance as it prevents a lawyer from giving a gift of flowers or a round of golf to a client for having referred another person to the lawyer. Rather than addressing these de minimis situations in a rule revision, the task force is recommending that lawyers be allowed to give anything to a person for recommending their services. The potential for abuse is obviously not self-evident. Lawyers will be able to give cash payments to clients and friends, among others, for client referrals. It is argued that the rules against solicitation will prevent any abuses. Lawyers will not need to direct clients, friends, and other people to personally communicate with potential clients on their behalves. If lawyers give monetary rewards for new clients, word will travel. No need to direct anyone to do anything. Nothing will require the lawyer to advise his or her new client of the payment. Substantial monetary rewards may be involved in serious personal injury and wrongful death cases, among others.

    I urge the Court to revise the rule to permit de minimis gifts (defined as the Court deems appropriate) to persons for recommending a lawyer’s services and not open the floodgates to permit a lawyer to give anything of value to a person – no matter the value – for recommending his or her services.

    George A. Riemer
    Arizona Bar Member No. 017034
    623-238-5039
    garpho@outlook.com
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:160 Basic Member

    --
    02 Jun 2020 08:28 AM
    Dave Byers
    Executive Director, Administrative Office of Courts
    Member, Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services
    State Courts Building
    1501 West Washington
    Phoenix, Arizona 85007
    Telephone: (602) 452-3301
    Projects2@courts.az.gov

    The attached reply to comments regarding the proposed rule changes to ERs 7.1 through 7.5 posted here in this topic and in response to R-20-0034 is made on behalf of the Task Force.
    Attachments
    Topic is locked