Darren M. Clausen, Esq.
AV Preeminent Attorney*
Clausen Law Offices
2730 E. Broadway Blvd. Ste. 240
Tucson, AZ 85716
520-327-5000 office
520-268-9162 fax
[email protected]
www.clausenazlaw.com

I oppose this petition and adopt the comments of Thomas Burnett. I am a former Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Month and Top 50 Pro Bono Award winner and have been a member of the State Bar of Arizona in active practice for over twenty years. This proposal does nothing to increase access to justice for the most vulnerable in our society.

Kurt Maahs
Maahs Law Firm
11201 N. Tatum Boulevard, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85028
602-247-1730
[email protected]
AZ Bar number 028545

I am strongly opposed to the Petition to permit non-lawyers to own or manage law firms. I understand the goal is to increase access to justice, but the good intentions to not make this a sound policy.

I second the comments of many others in these comments, including past bar president Geoff Trachtenberg.

Opening up the practice of law to non-lawyers, or even allowing them to manage attorneys, strikes at the heart of the profession. We have always been a proud profession because we have ethics and the interests of our clients must be put above our own. That does not happen in the business world, even if there is an attorney that is going to be "responsible" for the non-lawyers. People running a business expect financial results over the result of the client. Businesses are wired to make decisions much differently than lawyers. Many say that lawyers are terrible at business. That may be the truth because lawyers play by different rules for the benefit of our clients and our profession. We make decisions constantly that are beneficially to our clients, even if they are not beneficial to our bottom line. I have seen non-lawyers address those issues and they do not view them the same way. Businesses are about the bottom line with no duty to clients. I saw comments by an out of state administrator stating she was not so cynical to believe lawyers don't make business decisions. We do, but we have a greater duty to our clients under the ethical rules. I have, and I know many other attorneys, that have expended time and money because it was ethically right, even if it was a terrible business decision. That cynicism is grossly misplaced.

I also understand that the purpose of the amendment is to allow service to the underserved. That may or may not happen. I find it hard to believe there will be businesses investing in low profit advice. What is certain to happen is that an influx of money from non-lawyers will become present in the larger metropolitan areas and even bigger towns. Places where sufficient legal resources exist. Non-lawyers will seek to control areas of the law that are the most profitable, not the least. The unintended consequence of this rule change will be the real result. It will end up causing real harm to citizens seeking legal services and not likely address the concerns of the committee.

The quality of legal service will not be improved either. Bad legal advice is more costly than good advice. The problem is that the cost is on the back end and may not be known for years. The law is not paint by numbers. Facts differ and there are exceptions to every rule. Education and experience matter. It is why we have law schools, bar examinations, and continuing legal education. Allowing non-lawyers to offer services will reduce the quality of legal advice in the state. It will cause irreparable harm to those that receive the bad advice.

Approximately 20 years ago, there was a push to allow non-lawyers to supervise and manage lawyers. That push came from the "Big 6" accounting firms as they sought to combine different types of services under one roof. While this proposal was being discussed, there was criminal conduct of one of these accounting firms, Arthur Anderson, and one of its clients, Enron. Not surprisingly, that movement was quashed. We all know that profit centered decisions and ethical decisions will come into conflict many times. It is foolhardy to believe that the ethical considerations of a single lawyer will trump the opinion or decision of a non-lawyer CFO or CEO, who have fiduciary duties to shareholders. The proposed rule change will allow companies to manage non-lawyers, with likely disastrous consequences that are foreseeable based on history.

It also seems telling that many comments for this proposal come from out of state. That should be telling to the committee, as should the rejection of similar proposals by other states.

If there are underserved areas of the state or of the law, perhaps there is a more narrowly tailored response that is appropriate, as some have suggested. Opening the floodgates hoping that only those the committee wants to come through is not the answer, and is far too broad of a solution for what seems to be a specific problem.

Alison R. Christian
2800 N. Central Ave. Suite 860
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Office: (602) 792-1700
Direct: (602) 792-1706
Fax: (602) 792-1710
[email protected]
www.cdslawfirm.com

I am the current President of the Arizona Association of Defense Counsel and wish to submit the following opposition to the proposed rule change on behalf of the AADC:

The Arizona Association of Defense Counsel (“AADC”) is comprised of 48 law firms and 146 individual lawyers, for a total of 570 active defense members. The AADC opposes the proposed rule changes to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms proposed by the Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services. The AADC opposes these proposed rule changes for the same reasons set forth in the Honorable Peter Swann’s Opposition Statement in the Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services Report dated October 4, 2019, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

My Arizona bar number is 025410. If you have any questions about the AADC’s opposition, please feel free to contact me directly.

John F. Gordon
66 W. Encanto Blvd
Phoenix, AZ 85003
6023199410
SBA 005719 Retd Status

I oppose this rule change. The reasons for my opposition are reflected in the multitude of other comments opposing the change.

Steve Lippman
SBA # 015164
1850 North Central, 17th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Direct: (602) 234-8781
Fax: (602) 850-9781
Email: [email protected]

I oppose the proposed rule change because the change will effectively invalidate the ethical rules related to maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. The proposed rule change would create a double and lesser standard for those not licensed as attorneys such that the integrity of the profession will suffer. Ethical obligations of attorneys start from day 1, the moment attorneys apply for admission to the Bar. ER. 8.1. That obligation begins with a duty of honesty. The duty of honesty may be the most important and fundamental duty of the legal profession. See Matter of Frequez, 162 Ariz. 328, 334, 783 P .2d 774, 780 (1989) (During a disciplinary hearing, the hearing committee recommended disbarment for a number of factors including, “The duty violated was the duty to avoid conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. This duty is perhaps the most fundamental ethical duty of a lawyer and is correspondingly supremely important.”). In order to maintain the integrity of the legal profession, those practicing must abide by the ethical rules and there must be a means of stepping in when practitioners fall short of that duty. See ERs 8.3-8.5.

When practitioners do fall short, it is the responsibility of practitioners around them to take appropriate steps to address the failure, including reporting to the appropriate disciplinary authority. ER 8.3. Disciplinary proceedings are arguably essential tools for ensuring the legal profession’s integrity because their stated objectives are “(1) maintenance of the integrity of the profession in the eyes of the public; (2) protection of the public from unethical or incompetent lawyers; and (3) deterrence of other lawyers from engaging in illegal or unprofessional conduct.” In re Scholl, 200 Ariz. 222, 224, 25 P .3d 710, 712 (2001). Disciplinary proceedings may also serve as more than a means of doling out punishment for ill-behaved attorneys. In some cases, the proceedings may help “in the rehabilitation of an errant lawyer.” Id., as well as “to instill public confidence in the Bar's integrity.” In re Phillips, 226 Ariz. 112, 117, 244 P.3d 549, 554 (2010).

ERs 8.1-8.5 help ensure that lawyers are not only acting appropriately—being honest—but that they provide competent representation for their clients. My concern with the creation of the LLLPs is that a number of clients will no longer be protected by the Ethical Rules by which attorneys are bound in Arizona. Many people seeking more cost-effective legal services are presumably unfamiliar with the legal profession and therefore unlikely to understand the difference between a licensed attorney and an LLLP. Consequently, they will not understand that their “attorney” is not subject to the same level of scrutiny as licensed attorneys. As a result, many clients will likely unknowingly suffer from incompetent legal representation. Consequently, the proposed rule change will not only fail to provide access to the legal system at a more cost-effective rate, it will likely cause more harm to those seeking access by necessitating the involvement of licensed attorneys to address the mishandling of clients’ cases.

A secondary concern of allowing LLLPs to practice without the same ethical responsibilities of licensed attorneys is the effect that it could have on the entire profession. “The duty of members of the bar to report, in appropriate circumstances, apparent misconduct by fellow attorneys is an important aspect of the legal profession’s relative autonomy and the concomitant ‘special responsibilities of self-government.’” Ethical Opinion 90-13. Without the universal application of ethical rules like ER 8.1-8.5, there is a risk there will be a movement for greater oversight. Such a change would likely have rippling effects on the entire landscape of the profession and those who endeavored to earn that autonomy by completing law school, studying the ethical obligations, passing the bar exam, and gaining admission to the Bar.

While I recognize the intent behind the proposed change to ER 5.4 is good, the legal profession is better served by maintaining the current requirements for practice. Clients, individual practitioners, and the entire legal community benefit from universal application of the ethical rules. Unless and until there is a way to ensure that unlicensed practitioners are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, Arizona courts should not entertain expanding the practice to those without the requisite training and standards of performance. The integrity of the profession must be maintained and we must ensure “public confidence in the Bar’s integrity.”

Submitted on Behalf of:
Arizona Town Hall
2400 W. Dunlap Ave., Suite 200
Phoenix, Ariz. 85021-2815
(602) 252-9600
[email protected]

By:

Judge Patricia K. Norris (Ret.)
Board Chair, Arizona Town Hall
ASU Law Group
111 East Taylor Street, Suite 120, MC8520
Phoenix, Ariz. 85004
(602) 496-1887
[email protected]
(Bar Number 004980)

Tara Jackson
President, Arizona Town Hall
2400 W. Dunlap Ave., Suite 200
Phoenix, Ariz. 85021-2815
(602) 252-9600
[email protected]
(Bar Number 013274)

Timothy D. Ducar, Esq.
Law Offices of Timothy D. Ducar, PLC
7430 E. Butherus Drive, Suite E
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
(480) 502-2119 (voice)
(480) 452-0900 (fax)
www.azlawyers.com

I write in strong opposition to abrogating ER 5.4.

Every day, I go to work, striving to do my best for my clients. Doing so makes me feel satisfied in the good job I have done. It also keeps me from getting a bar complaint or getting sued for malpractice.

Non-lawyers having a financial interest in a law firm would not have the goal of performing well, or the concern of a career-ending bar complaint, or the concern of getting sued for malpractice. For them, having an interest in a law firm would be a money making tool. If the non-lawyer actually was found to have put his/her interests above the client’s in an inappropriate way, and was told he/she could no longer hold an interest in a law firm, that person would simply take his/her money and move on to the next industry. As a result, allowing non-lawyers to have an ownership interest in law firms will negatively affect the quality of the legal profession as a whole, and the quality of the work product performed in the legal community.

Regarding allowing non-lawyers to represent clients in limited circumstances, this, too, is not a well-reasoned suggestion. While I recognize that some people do not have access to the legal system, allowing non-lawyers to represent clients in some (yet undefined) circumstances will have a detrimental effect on many of the clients who wanted help, as well as the entire legal system in Arizona. For example, they undoubtedly will cause a class of documents to be filed that will be subpar, and may actually harm the client.

For these reasons, ER 5.4 should not be abrogated.

Christopher D. Burk, Esq.*
THE PATRIOT LAW FIRM CORP.
2350 West Charleston Blvd. #202
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
OFFICE - (702) 620-2020
EFAX - (702) 623-5113
CELL - (702) 908-6313
www.fightforthelittleguy.com

Based on what I have read thus far, I have to submit my opposition to R-20-0034.

I can see no reason to allow non-attorneys to have ownership of law firms. It will result in the endless complaints and eventual instances of litigation for conflicts of interest. It will also increase the likelihood of malpractice complaints.

Mary K. Farrington-Lorch
Law Office of Mary K. Farrington-Lorch
3930 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 100
Phoenix, AZ 85018
602-254-0249
Email: [email protected]

I am simply confused, as to why non-lawyers should be allowed and permitted to have an ownership interest in a law firm. Is that, in fact, giving a non-lawyer, a non-legally trained person, the right to influence and direct the practice of law by duly trained, learned and licensed lawyers? Allowing non-lawyer firm ownership, could very easily place the direction of the practice of law, by a duly licensed lawyer and the lawyer’s ability to use their knowledge, skills and discretion, at risk. What if the non-lawyer has some motivating factor to direct lawyers, in the practice, which goes against ethics, the rules and the like. Thus, forcing lawyers to choose between earning an income and making ethically correct decisions, based on the rules, of law, ethics and precedent.

Jennifer Delgado
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
1850 N. Central Ave., Suite 1700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Bar # 020499

I strongly oppose the Petition and believe allowing non-lawyers to own or share ownership in law firms will have a negative adverse effect on the practice of law and access to justice. I believe following this path is going to erode the quality of legal services in Arizona, devalue my license, and hurt the public. The fabric of our ethical duties will be stretched thin and more often than not, with competing profit interests from investors, will erode. While I understand the underlying issues that such a proposal is trying to address, allowing non-lawyers into the practice of law is not the solution.

Christopher Bistany
Bistany Law Firm PLLC
7373 E. Doubletree Ranch Road, Suite B-165
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Office: (480) 757-0080
Fax: (480) 757-0081
E-Mail: [email protected]

As an Arizona licensed attorney I OPPOSE the Petition to Eliminate ER 5.4, introduce LLLP’s, etc: R-20-0034.

This is a very dangerous propose rule that will place the practice of law into the hands of individuals who are not qualified to practice law. It is that simple. It will result in great harm to the general public who seek legal representation. I adopt the comments made by Geoffrey Trachtenberg regarding this petition in full.

Andrew Abraham
702 E Osborn Rd Ste 200
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Phone: (602) 234-9917

I oppose the Petition which would eliminate ER 5.4 and 5.7 and allow non-lawyers to co-own law firms. I have been practicing in Arizona for over 35 years. The Petition may have been intended to increase access to legal services, but at what cost for those who are in need of competent legal counsel and have no idea how to retain someone who is qualified to provided needed advice. Not only does the quality of service suffer, but the services are often more expensive given the focus on law being a business vs a profession. We should not allow the legal profession to devolve to the point that it is a business run by non-lawyers; it hurts the legal profession, the public and the clients we serve

Kurt Maahs
Maahs Law Firm
N. Tatum Boulevard, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ.
602-247-1730
[email protected]

I am strongly opposed to the Petition to permit non-lawyers to or or manage law firms. I understand the goal is to increase access to justice, but the good intentions to not make this a sound policy.

I second the comments of many others in these comments, including past bar president Geoff Trachtenberg.

Opening up the practice of law to non-lawyers, or even allowing them to manage attorneys, strikes at the heart of the profession. We have always been a proud profession because we have ethics and the interests of our clients must be put above our own. That does not happen in the business world, even if there is an attorney that is going to be "responsible" for the non-lawyers. People running a business expect financial results over the result of the client. Businesses are wired to make decisions much differently than lawyers. Many say that lawyers are terrible at business. That may be the truth because lawyers play by different rules for the benefit of our clients and our profession. We make decisions constantly that are beneficially to our clients, even if they are not beneficial to our bottom line. I have seen non-lawyers address those issues and they do not view them the same way. Businesses are about the bottom line with no duty to clients.

I also understand that the purpose of the amendment is to allow service to the underserved. That may or may not happen. I find it hard to believe there will be businesses investing in low profit advice. What is certain to happen is that an influx of money from non-lawyers will become present in the larger metropolitan areas and even bigger towns. Places where sufficient legal resources exist. Non-lawyers will seek to control areas of the law that are the most profitable, not the least. The unintended consequence of this rule change will be the real result. It will end up causing real harm to citizens seeking legal services and not likely address the concerns of the committee.

The quality of legal service will not be improved either. Bad legal advice is more costly than good advice. The problem is that the cost is on the back end and may not be known for years. The law is not paint by numbers. Facts differ and there are exceptions to every rule. Education and experience matter. It is why we have law schools, bar examinations, and continuing legal education. Allowing non-lawyers to offer services will reduce the quality of legal advice in the state. It will cause irreparable harm to those that receive the bad advice.

Approximately 20 years ago, there was a push to allow non-lawyers to supervise and manage lawyers. That push came from the "Big 6" accounting firms as they sought to combine different types of services under one roof. While this proposal was being discussed, there was criminal conduct of one of these accounting firms, Arthur Anderson, and one of its clients, Enron. Not surprisingly, that movement was quashed. We all know that profit centered decisions and ethical decisions will come into conflict many times. It is foolhardy to believe that the ethical considerations of a single lawyer will trump the opinion or decision of a non-lawyer CFO or CEO, who have fiduciary duties to shareholders. The proposed rule change will allow companies to manage non-lawyers, with likely disastrous consequences that are foreseeable based on history.

If there are underserved areas of the state or of the law, perhaps there is a more narrowly tailored response that is appropriate, as some have suggested. Opening the floodgates hoping that only those the committee wants come through is not the answer and is far too broad of a solution for what seems to be a specific problem.

Annette Burns
4808 N 22nd St Ste 200
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 230-9118

I oppose the changes suggested in R-20-0034. There is no connection between the elimination of ER 5.4 and access to justice. Non-lawyer owners of law firms will unquestionably harm the public and harm the practice of law by compromising professional ethics and professional judgment in order to answer to a non-lawyer owner. The elimination of this provision will do nothing but improve revenues for non-lawyers (and possibly lawyers as well) which will come directly from the pockets of consumers.

As a family law attorney, I should approve of the inclusion of non-lawyer professionals to practice in certain areas of the law, including family law, because that inclusion will absolutely increase paying work for family law attorneys. Family law attorneys constantly receive new work which is necessitated only because someone (a) did not receive any legal advice to start with; (b) received legal advice that was not good; or (c) tried to use a document preparer or paralegal to do work that should have been done by an experienced lawyer. The inclusion of LLLPs to do family law work will absolutely increase paying work for attorneys who will be hired to "fix" what should have been done correctly in the first place. I am not, however, in favor of this change and the inclusion of LLLPs to practice law, because I can't ethically support something that is so contrary to the best interests of the public. There is certainly a need for more access to justice through low-cost and free services for the public, but allowing LLLPs to actually pretend to practice law will give the public the false impression that they're getting decent legal advice, which is misleading and harmful.

David M. Bell
2800 N. Central Ave., Ste. 860
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Office: (602) 792-1700
Direct: (602) 792-1713
[email protected]

ABOTA opposition to eliminating Rule 5.4 and 5.7

To the Arizona Supreme Court:

The Board of the Phoenix Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), submits these comments on and objections to the proposals in Petition R-20-0034 to eliminate ER 5.4 and ER 5.7. In doing so, we note and join in the comments and objections to eliminating these Ethical Rules, already submitted by several of our Chapter’s members, including Geoffrey Trachtenberg, Theodore Julian, Jr., Frank Verderame, John Micheaels, Kent Hammond, Chris Bode, Robert Greer, and Christopher Zachar.

ABOTA and its members are dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the right to civil jury trial provided by the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The cornerstone to the preservation and promotion of that right is our profession. The ABOTA Code of Professionalism begins with, “ I Shall, Always remember that the practice of law is first and foremost a profession.” Our dedication to the practice of law as, “first and foremost a profession,” necessarily leads us to object to the proposal to eliminate of ER 5.4 and ER 5.7. Within our profession, ER 5.4 has long been recognized as a fundamental requirement in protecting “the lawyer's professional independence of judgment.” In addition to more specific rules addressing the client-lawyer relationship, confidentiality, advocacy and transactions with persons other than clients, ER 5.4 confirms that the firms we organize to provide our services must be dedicated to those professional obligations.

Having reviewed the Petition, the Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Delivery of Legal Services (“Task Force Report) we note that the Task Force was established to explore changes of various court rules and professional rules for the purpose of advancing access to justice. ABOTA has long supported expansion of access to justice and includes that goal in our Code of Professionalism: “I Shall…Work with the other members of the bar, including judges, opposing counsel, and those whose practices are different from mine, to make our system of justice more accessible and responsive.” In fulfilling that commitment, our members participate in the Volunteer Lawyer Program, serve as pro-bono “ABOTA counsel” to the probate courts in reviewing proposed settlements for claimants who minors, and accept representation for contingent fees or reduced fees and provide countless hours of pro-bono representation.

While joining in the goal to advancing access to justice, we find no support in the Petition’s conclusions or the Task Force report’s conclusion that eliminating ER 5.4 and 5.7 will advance access to justice. On this point we join the Hon. Peter Swan’s “Opposition Statement” that the proposal to eliminate ER 5.4 and ER 5.7 are a detour from the Task Force’s stated goal of examining and proposing steps to improve access to justice for the under-served. The Petition and Task Force report both contend that eliminating these rules will permit innovation through alternative business structures (ABSs). The Petition and Task Force report fail, however, to provide empirical evidence or reasonable explanations of innovations in the access to justice that cannot be otherwise achieved by the cooperative efforts of lawyers and non-lawyers. The Petition and the Task Force report also fail to offer a reasonable explanation of how allowing non-lawyer investment in ABSs providing legal services, by eliminating ER 5.4, will lead to expansion of those services to individuals who cannot currently afford legal services. To the contrary, absent compelling evidence or explanation, it is far more reasonable to conclude that non-lawyer investment will flow to ABSs that provide services in the more lucrative sectors of the practice.

Last, we share judge Swan’s concern in his “Opposition Statement” to the Task Force report that the resulting Petition glosses over the potential harm to the public perception of a justice system that strips away ethical constraints on lawyers in order to allow non-lawyers to own firms providing legal services. Public confidence in lawyers is already low; yet public confidence in the courts remains high. If the Arizona Supreme Court is perceived as eliminating ethical constraints on lawyers so that they can form ABSs that attract investment by sharing fees with non-lawyer investors, public confidence in the courts will be diminished.

J. Tyrrell Taber
ASB# 005204
2398 E. Camelback Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602 332-6010

Petition Number 20-0034 is antithetical to the rules, considerations and aspirations of the the profession of lawyering.

The pursuit of justice for those in need, through the providing of time and advice is what lawyers have done throughout time. This is an awesome responsibility handled by highly trained and skilled practitioners. As professionals, not businessmen, decisions are made about providing access to justice based on a creed that is not money driven. Recently, lawyers from all areas of practice stood up and provided free legal services to those suffering from the COVID-19 crisis. Entrusting this responsibility to non-lawyers with a profit motive will inflict untold damage on the citizens of Arizona.

The distaste for this ill-conceived petition was initial best expressed by Judge Peter Swann, who has been joined by hundreds of lawyers throughout our state in a resounding rejection of this unwanted rule change. I add my voice to their ranks.

Daryl Manhart
Burch & Cracchiolo. P.A.
1850 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-234-9908
[email protected]
Bar no. 005471

The Task Force report clearly reflects a lot of work and there is no denying that there are many members of the public who cannot afford legal services. Nevertheless, I propose the subject rule amendments be rejected with respect to both permitting nonlawyer ownership interests in law firms and allowing a category of nonlawyers to provide certain limited services now only permitted to be performed by lawyers. These are different and should be considered separately. The former is more objectionable than the latter.

Nonlawyer ownership.

It seems unlikely that permitting nonlawyer ownership can avoid negatively impacting the exercise of a lawyer’s professional judgment. The increasing role insurance adjusters already have in controlling the litigation defense in many cases suggests otherwise. The defense lawyer has a client, but the insurance company controls the defense. The insurance adjuster gets advice from the lawyer, but the lawyer cannot file a motion or perform research and expect to be paid unless the adjuster has first approved it. The client certainly gets professional representation, but it is not necessarily the full extent of what the lawyer’s professional judgment recommends. In terms of the quality of legal service, the client gets a level of service that is adequate, not necessarily the best, and the client did not get to make that decision. Permitting nonlawyer ownership of law firms may be expected to expand that nonlawyer control of the representation afforded. Moreover, in contrast to the insurance adjuster example where the nonlawyer control as to expense is still aligned with the client’s interest in a successful defense, a nonlawyer owner of a law firm is not motivated to control expense, but to maximize profit. Permitting such ownership can also be expected to permit nonlawyers to engage in conduct (i.e., soliciting) to benefit the firm that lawyers are forbidden to do without regulatory controls over the nonlawyers.

Nonlawyer legal technicians.

Some other states are already trying this, including the State of Washington which started a program several years ago, so far restricting such legal technicians to limited areas of practice. An article by R. Donaldson, Law by Non-Lawyers: The Limit to Limited License Legal Technicians Increasing Access to Justice, 42 Seattle University Law Review 1 (2018), concludes that the current Washington program may assist moderate income individuals in obtaining affordable legal services, but not low income legal consumers. There is also a report entitled “Preliminary Evaluation of the Washington State Limited License Legal Technician Program” (2017), available at http://www.americanbarfou...n_program_032117.pdf which concludes that Washington’s program has benefit, but also states that the cost of regulating to maintain that quality would require a bigger population of annual fee-paying technicians or lesser regulation of them. The public is not served by giving it a less expensive, but insufficiently regulated alternative.
There seems to be a focus on allowing such legal technicians to assist in family law cases. Those undoubtedly have a large proportion of unrepresented parties. The rule proposal also discusses expanding services of legal document preparers to provide additional services in family law matters. As pointed out in the Opposition Statement accompanying the Task Force report, “the concept is not fully baked.” Approving a rule change first, then delegating to a steering a committee the task of developing, testing, and implementing whatever might be permitted, seems unwise.

Other comments.

Decades now of permitting lawyer advertising may not have hurt the public, but it has not expanded affordable legal services or driven down the expense in any area. Indeed, the most prolific advertising is for personal injury representation where contingent fees are the norm for plaintiffs, and such representation has long been affordable as long as a lawyer believes there is a viable case. That same motivation to expand affordable legal services underlies the current proposal, but there seems no reason to believe that these suggestions will accomplish that.

A stated purpose is to “encourage innovation in the delivery of legal services.” That seems unlikely. Again referencing the Opposition Statement, “systemic reforms” instead may be what is needed to “create a simpler and more efficient [court] system.” A different approach might require more than just simpler procedures or court personnel to guide the nonlawyer through them. The inability of much of the public to afford legal representation would be better advanced by reforms that reduce the work needed. If a lawyer can handle a matter in less time, that will cost less, then a lawyer can serve more clients. For instance, in the litigation area, if dispositive motions were more often granted and upheld on appeal (i.e., failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, qualified immunity, no duty – not suggesting caps on damages; or on the other side, more objectivity or rigidity in what qualifies as a defense), lawyers could with greater certainty advise prospective plaintiffs or parties served as defendants whether there is a viable claim or defense and better estimate the expense to get to a ruling on a dispositive motion. While in the criminal law field with life and liberty at stake there is justification for the concept that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one, there is room for a more practical approach on the civil side. Constantly eroding constraints such as limitations periods and expanding what conduct is subjectively actionable or defendable just make for more civil suits that take longer to resolve and are too expensive. More certainty as to outcomes would mean accepting that some parties will get debatably unfair outcomes, but that happens already. Trial court judges, juries, and appellate judges all make mistakes and we accept that system. It is not just procedures that need to be simpler to make the justice system affordable, but the common law and rule changes alone will be inadequate to address that.

Denise M. Blommel, Attorney Arizona 5388
Denise M. Blommel, PLLC
6945 E. Sahuaro, Suite 125
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
[email protected]
480-247-7477

For all the reasons in my previous comment, I strongly oppose Petition R-20-0034.
The changes proposed will have unintended consequences and will not improve the access to justice in our State.
Thank you for your consideration of all the comments in opposition.

James W. Rappaport
Pima County Bar Association, Rules Committee
177 North Church Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
520-623-8258
[email protected]
Bar Number: 031699

Please find attached the Pima County Bar Association’s comment in strong opposition to the proposed rule changes.
The Amended Petition should be resisted tooth and nail.

JACK H. HIRSCH, ESQ.
HIRSCH & LYON, P.L.L.C.
1212 E. Osborn Road
Phoenix, AZ 85014
(602)264-7700 Phone
(602)264-2621-Fax
[email protected]

I write this in opposition to Rule Change R-20-0034. I’ve been practicing law in AZ since 1988 and have seem many meaningful, purposeful, and well thought out changes over the years. I am fearful the changes being proposed have a much greater propensity of doing harm to the legal profession and the public, than the potential benefit that this Rule change may benefit.

I find the State Bar has its hands full in trying to regulate and monitor the State Bar as this point. Enacting this Rule change will make it close to impossible to regulate and monitor those non lawyer and non lawyer entities that will be inevitably running matters with puppet lawyers.