Joel F Friedman, Esq.
JOEL F FRIEDMAN, PLLC
Arizona State Bar No. 007688
610 E. Roosevelt St., Unit 133
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-540-6366
[email protected]
[email protected]

I am writing in opposition to the Petition to Abrogate ER 5.4 and other features of the
proposal to expand opportunities for non-lawyers effectively to practice law.

Norma Lebario, Esq.
2058 S. Dobson Road Suite #1
Mesa, AZ 85202
Phone: (623) 321-0566

I respectfully oppose the proposed amendment to Rule 31

S. David Andelin #028183
ESCAMILLA LAW GROUP, PLLC
2058 S. Dobson Rd., Suite 1
Mesa, AZ 85202

I oppose the elimination / modification of ER 5.4 and 5.7 that allows for the Limited License Legal Practitioner to directly handle legal matters. Having worked in immigration law during law school, I repeatedly saw innocent persons being taken advantage of by non-attorneys. Sanctioning such practices will absolutely increase this activity, thereby harming the same people for which the modification is intended.

I take my oath very seriously, and always weigh decisions in my practice with the Ethical Rules that govern those of us that practice law. I am confident that a non-attorney, who hasn’t spent years sacrificing his / her life to obtain a law degree and pass the bar, will not take his / her oath as serious as a licensed attorney.

Honestly, it’s ridiculous this is even being considered.

Suzanne Ingold
702 E Osborn Rd Ste 200
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Phone: (602) 234-8775

Current ER 5.3:
Current Ethical Rule 5.3 provides:
(a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer;
(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and
(c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:
(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

2. Proposed ER 5.3
The proposed version of Ethical Rule 5.3 provides:
(a) A lawyer in a firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the conduct of nonlawyers, including those who have economic interests in the firm, is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. Reasonable measures include but are not limited to adopting and enforcing policies and procedures designed:
(1) to prevent nonlawyers in a firm from directing, controlling or materially limiting the lawyer’s independent professional judgment on behalf of clients or materially influencing which clients a lawyer does or does not represent; and
(2) to ensure that nonlawyers comport themselves in accordance with the lawyer’s ethical obligations, including, but not limited to, avoiding conflicts of interest and maintaining the confidentiality of all firm client information.
(b) A lawyer having supervisory authority over a nonlawyer within or outside a firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the nonlawyer’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.
(1) Reasonable efforts include providing to nonlawyers appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment or retention, particularly regarding the obligation not to disclose information relating to the representation of the client.
(2) Measures employed in supervising nonlawyers should take into account that they may not have legal training and are not subject to professional discipline.
(3) When retaining or directing a nonlawyer outside the firm, a lawyer should communicate directions appropriate under the circumstances to give reasonable assurance that the nonlawyer's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.
(4) Where the client directs the selection of a particular nonlawyer service provider outside the firm, the lawyer ordinarily should agree with the client concerning the allocation of responsibility for monitoring as between the client and the lawyer.
(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of a nonlawyer that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:
(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
(2) the lawyer has managerial authority in the firm and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
(d) When a firm includes nonlawyers who have an economic interest or managerial authority in the firm, any lawyer practicing therein shall ensure that a lawyer has been identified as responsible for establishing policies and procedures within the firm to assure nonlawyer compliance with these rules.

3. Proposed Commentary Language Re: Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer
I am opposed to the rule change because there will be problems relating to supervision by nonlawyer owners and managers under the proposed version of ER 5.3. While the proposal suggests that a lawyer in the firm will be “responsible for establishing policies and procedures to assure that all nonlawyers comply with the lawyers’ ethical obligations,” Pet. at 15, no compliance can be ensured given that there will be inherent conflicts of interest under the new rules. These conflicts will arise due to non-lawyers’ influence based on economic interests in the firm. The Second Circuit recognized this exact principle in upholding New York State’s prohibition against “the involvement of unrelated third parties in the attorney-client relationship.” Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v. Presiding Justices of the First, Second, Third & Fourth Dep’ts, Appellate Div. of the Supreme Court of N.Y., 852 F.3d 178, 191 (2d Cir. 2017). In Jacoby & Meyers, the plaintiffs challenged New York’s ban on non-lawyer equity investment, arguing that allowing non-lawyer equity investment would increase access to justice by lowering the cost of legal services. Id. at 182.The court rejected that argument and found that prohibiting non-lawyer equity involvement in firms “serve[s] New York State’s well-established interest in regulating attorney conduct and in maintaining ethical behavior and independence among the members of the legal profession.” Id. Without such a prohibition, nothing will prevent the creation of incentives for attorneys to violate ethical norms, such as those requiring attorneys to put their clients’ interests foremost. Id.

Proposed ER 5.3 sets aspirational goals to protect the professionalism and independence of lawyers. But, there is a powerful and critical difference between supervising a nonlawyer employee and ensuring that the lawyers in the firm are not swayed or improperly influenced by a nonlawyer who has a paramount, if not sole, economic interest in the firm. The potential for a conflict of interest—that is between a lawyer protecting her client and honoring the wishes of a nonlawyer who has an economic interest in the firm—is most at risk.

The public policy reasoning underlying current ER 5.4 shows why proposed ER 5.3 will not work. “A nonlawyer might see the potential for financial gain by taking a certain course of action and, therefore, attempt to influence an attorney’s professional judgment. The nonlawyer wants to take the easy settlement, grab a legal fee and run.” Phil Pattee, Nonlawyers Are Useful, but You're the Attorney, Nev. Law., November 2008, at 37. In fact, “[i]n such a situation, the attorney has a partner trying to influence his or her professional judgment to the possible detriment of a client.” Id. While there can be all types of purported safeguards, nonlawyers are not lawyers, and they will not think through the ethical conundrums in the same way lawyers do nor are they required to. The potential that under the proposed rules that a nonlawyer may affect the professional judgment of a lawyer in the firm, as well as their ethical obligations, is enough to reject the proposed rule changes. No form of ER 5.3 can fix that.

Bryce Burnham
Booth Udall Fuller, PLC
1255 W. Rio Salado Pkwy #215
Tempe, AZ 85281
[email protected]
ph: 480.830.2700

I am in opposition to proposed rule R-20-0034, and believe that ER 5.4 should not be eliminated as it would negatively effect the professional independence of lawyers in Arizona.

I believe removal of ER 5.4 would not serve the interests of the people of Arizona, and could misalign incentives such that business concerns of a law firm could overshadow the ethical obligations of the law firm. A law firm’s concern should be first for best interest of the client, and ER 5.4 helps maintain and preserve that proper focus.

Denise Quinterri
161 E Inverness Dr
Ore Valley, AZ 85737
480-239-9807
[email protected]

Timothy Sandefur (Bar # 033670)
Goldwater Institute
500 E. Coronado Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 462-5000
[email protected]

Edwin C. Bull
1850 North Central, 17th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Direct: 602.234.9913
Email: [email protected]

As a 40 year member in good standing of the Arizona Bar (since October, 1980), I am strongly opposed to the proposed change to ER 5.4 that I believe would effectively turn legal services in Arizona into a business-driven “commodity” owned and controlled by corporate businesses rather than by independent lawyers/law firms. Lawyers have been and should continue to be ethically responsible for what we do (and do not do) to represent our clients – and we (as lawyers) should answer to our clients and to the Bar for our decisions, conduct and actions. We should not answer to the whims, business desires and balance sheets of a business-driven company that is in the “business” of legal services, rather than in the “profession” being a lawyer and an officer of the court.

I certainly recognize the un-met needs of many people who need but cannot afford legal services at typical hourly rates. And I certainly am not opposed to obligating every member of the Bar with providing an appropriate (hours set by the Bar) number of pro bono (or reduced fee) services to those most in need. I am also perfectly fine with the Bar obligating any lawyer who claims to be too busy (or whatever) to provide such pro bono or reduced fee services, then they are responsible to contribute $X per hour for any pro bono/reduced fee hours that they did not provide. In turn, those collected dollars can be used to pay other members of the bar to provide the needed services. With pride and a sense of obligation, throughout my career I have provided (and continue to provide) pro bono representation to a homeless shelter, to various non-profit organizations, and numerous needy individuals. To me, providing pro bono services to those most in need is the right thing to do – for both ethical and human reasons.

And finally, I am certainly not anti-business or anti-change for the better. In fact, I have spent most of my 40 years representing various businesses/corporations who are involved (mostly) in the real estate development business – and I appreciate the opportunity to represent those businesses and to have played a small role in many changes in the Phoenix-Metro area. However, when any of those businesses ask/order me (for whatever reason) to do or say something that they think is necessary/appropriate but I think is inappropriate, I steadfastly turn to my independent judgment and responsibilities as a lawyer to refuse to follow those “orders” from the business/corporation – at the risk of losing that client. However, if my “boss” were a business/corporation in the business of legal services, refusing to follow those “orders” would be at the risk of losing my job.

I take a great deal of pride in being a member of the Bar and the legal profession. For me, to work for a legal services company would be a “job” rather than a “profession”. Please do not start down the path of taking the “profession” and “personal responsibility” out of being a lawyer in Arizona.

Tonya K. MacBeth, Esq.
SBN #024140
1850 North Central, 17th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
AZ: 602.234.9926
[email protected]

Dear Committee Members,

Please consider this opposition to the proposed rule change. It is unfortunate when noble goals are thwarted by the inevitable misdeeds by non-lawyers who are handed a golden opportunity for profiteering to the disadvantage of persons who are at a crisis-point in their lives. Few people are fortunate to secure the services of an attorney when their lives are not in disarray. This rule change opens up an entire buffet of overwhelmed and disadvantaged targets.

Increasing access to legal services is a lofty goal. However, it can be done by other means. If the bar believes that everyone should have access to affordable legal services, require the members to provide those services. Don’t increase access by devaluing expertise of those who have been admitted to the bar and make them compete with big-pocketed-profiteers focused on market saturation, advertising, and decreased legal supervision.

As a volunteer Judge Pro Tem, I believe in the obligation to serve the profession that has given so much to me. The bar could require its members to volunteer time or fees within their area of practice. The Rules committee could waive conflict rules for attorneys who are willing to give free court sponsored training sessions on family law rules and procedures for those who are self-represented. The Rules committee could include liability protections (like those provided for court-appointed mental health professionals) for those “appointed” to provide court-house training sessions for pro bono litigants. The volunteer Pro Tem list could be the first source of trainers and those ready to train-the-trainer. These services could be piloted in Family Court, then Probate, followed by civil court.

Supervision and maintenance of professionalism is an important part of many attorneys’ law practices. I devote significant time to the supervision of my staff (paralegal and assistant) and the firm as a whole dedicates significant time to the supervision of the accounting, technology and marketing activities. All of these activities are carried out with the ethical responsibilities, rules, and an eye on the financial health of the organization. Through supervision, I have the ability to set the total cost for a dissolution action by determining the level of expertise required, the ability to use paralegal services under my supervision, and the time necessary to provide appropriate representation. However, with paraprofessionals working independently, the end result is lower expertise, not lower cost.

Lower cost services are not the panacea for the access problem. A survey conducted with LLLT’s and LLLT candidates in Washington, found that “[a]assuming that potential clients would be willing to spend even half a paycheck on their LLLT services . . . none of Washington’s population living at or below 125% of the federal poverty line could afford an LLLT [and] only about 15 percent of those living at or below 200 % of the federal poverty line could afford one.” Becca Donaldson, Who Accesses Justice? The Rise of Limited License Legal Technicians, 4(5) HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CENTER ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION: THE PRACTICE, July 2018, https://thepractice.law.harvard.edu/article/who-accesses-justice/ [https://perma.cc/94T8-3456].

The rule change is asking us to embrace our non-lawyer partners’ inherent profit motives and believe that the underserved will benefit. It is an illogical conclusion. Increasing the number of people who make money from a single client does not result in a lower cost for the client. The Second Circuit recognized this very principle in upholding New York State’s prohibition against “the involvement of unrelated third parties in the attorney-client relationship.” Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v. Presiding Justices of the First, Second, Third & Fourth Dep’ts, Appellate Div. of the Supreme Court of N.Y., 852 F.3d 178, 191 (2d Cir. 2017). In Jacoby & Meyers, the plaintiffs challenged New York’s ban on non-lawyer equity investment, arguing that allowing non-lawyer equity investment would increase access to justice by lowering the cost of legal services. Id. at 182.The court rejected that argument and found that prohibiting non-lawyer equity involvement in firms “serve[s] New York State’s well-established interest in regulating attorney conduct and in maintaining ethical behavior and independence among the members of the legal profession.” Id. Without such a prohibition, nothing will prevent the creation of incentives for attorneys to violate ethical norms, such as those requiring attorneys to put their clients’ interests foremost. Id. The compliance officer will be subject to the same pressure. “A nonlawyer might see the potential for financial gain by taking a certain course of action and, therefore, attempt to influence an attorney’s professional judgment. The nonlawyer wants to take the easy settlement, grab a legal fee and run.” Phil Pattee, Nonlawyers Are Useful, but You're the Attorney, Nev. Law., November 2008, at 37. By adding into this mix the ownership interests of persons who are not schooled in the responsibilities of practice, who are focused exclusively on profitability, you are injecting competing interests. These competing interests are not going to naturally coalesce around the non-income generating aspect of supervision or the obligation to maintain the integrity of the profession.

The end result of the proposed rule changes is opening the practice of law to profiteers and extending to them the last vestiges of respectability attached to the legal community. The Bar works hard to protect the profession from our own bad actors. This proposal will only serve to open the door to those who could never be admitted to practice.

Thank you for your dedication to the ideals of justice. We have other ways to meet the need beyond just diluting the services rendered. It is my sincerest hope that this rule proposal has opened the legal community to think outside the box to innovate in ways that demonstrate our dedication to the residents of Arizona and the profession.

Eric Hill
2727 S Playa
Mesa, AZ 85202
Bar No. 029890
(801) 518-6288
[email protected]


I am opposed to the Petition in its entirety for the reasons articulated by the other commenters in this forum.

Christine Davis, Bar No. 021046
Ethics Counsel
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

Edward G. Renner
Assistant Vice President, Corporate Counsel
[email protected]
o 847-553-3779
m 312-371-4852

Colleen Reppen Shiel
Vice President, Deputy General Counsel FN1

Dear Supreme Court:

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is the primary national trade association for home, auto, and business insurers. APCIA promotes and protects the viability of private competition for the benefit of consumers and insurers, with a legacy dating back 150 years. APCIA members represent all sizes, structures, and regions – protecting families, communities, and businesses in the U.S. and across the globe.

Property casualty insurers are among the highest-volume consumers of legal services and have a genuine interest in preserving the integrity of a fair, predictable, legal system. APCIA appreciates the opportunity to submit an additional comment letter, responding to Petition No. R-20-0034, In re: Restyle and Amend Rule 31; Adopt New Rule 33.1; Amend Rules 32, 41, 42 (Various ERs From 1.0 to 5.7), 46-51, 54-58, 60, and 75-76 (Petition). It is our understanding that the Task Force on the Delivery of Lega Services (Task Force) filed its Response and Amended Petition pursuant to Rule 28(a) of the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court on April 27, 2020.FN2 For the reasons set forth below, we again urge the Arizona Supreme Court to reject the Amended Petition to remove or limit Ethical Rules prohibiting nonlawyer law firm ownership, fee-splitting between lawyers and nonlawyers, and/or nonlawyer investments in law firms or litigation.

While this letter is intended to highlight some of APCIA’s concerns, it is not intended to identify or address all potentially harmful unintended consequences of granting the Task Force’s Amended Petition. Several Arizona attorneys have provided fulsome commentary in opposition and we direct the Arizona Supreme Court to the comments of Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg, Esq., Thomas Burnett, Esq., Frank Berry, Jr., Esq., David Friedman, Esq., and the combined comment of Nancy Greenlee, Esq. and Ann Ching, Esq.

First, APCIA renews its opposition to the elimination of Ethical Rules (ER) 5.4 and 5.7. ER 5.4 serves a critical purpose to ensure the independence and ethical conduct of lawyers, as its title, the “Professional Independence of a Lawyer”, indicates. Comment 1 to ER 5.4 confirms its purpose is to protect the lawyer’s “professional judgment.”FN3 The Task Force acknowledges the importance of these public and professional judgment protections but proposes to redistribute them among existing rules, without subjecting non-lawyer owners or investors to the Ethical Rules. In addition to diluting the existing protections provided by ER 5.4, eliminating the rule will weaken the special fiduciary relationship between attorney and client, insert a new set of conflicts between practicing attorneys and firm ownership, and convert the practice of law into a mere service.FN4 The Task Force’s Response adds no new argument and no new proof that eliminating ER 5.4 will not harm the public or the Arizona Bar. Instead, the Task Force relies on the current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in support of its petition, claiming it will “severely increase the need for legal services” (Response, p. 8). The fact is, however, that 64,000 lawyers were terminated or furloughed in April 2020, so there are literally thousands of currently licensed attorneys available.FN5

The Task Force mistakenly analogizes the elimination of ER 5.4 to allow ABSs to an insurer’s permitted use of employed staff counsel to represent its insureds. This is a false equivalence. Employed staff counsel are permitted to represent an insurer’s policyholder in Arizona where the insurer has a preexisting contractual obligation to provide the policyholder with a defense, and only where the interests of the insurer and the policyholder are aligned. Petitioner wants to commoditize litigation, creating a market for investors to buy in to litigation after a cause of action accrues, with the hope of realizing big returns on its investment. Existing ethics rules, including ER 5.4, protect against the injection of outside mercenary, and potentially conflicting, interests into the attorney/client relationship. Insurers that use employed staff counsel to defend policyholders have, by the nature of the preexisting relationship, a direct financial interest, fully aligned with the interest of the insured, in the outcome of the case being defended. This is distinct from nonlawyer ownership of law firms by strangers who have no interest in the outcome of a case absent an after-the-fact investment, and this is a distinction with a meaningful difference. Insurers are regulated by the Arizona Department of Insurance, and staff counsel are subject to and protected by Arizona’s Ethical Rules, including ERs 1.8, 5.4 and 5.7. Eliminating ER 5.4 would erode, rather than solidify, the underlying foundational ethical obligations owed by lawyer to client.

The same is true regarding the Petition to allow fee-splitting with nonlawyer owners or investors that have no relationship to, and owe no professional obligation to, a client. The introduction of an outside entity having the ability to influence – if not directly control – decisions related to the client’s interests, without that entity having any preexisting contractual obligation to, or other relationship with the client, would inherently conflict with the lawyer’s ethical obligation to exercise independent professional judgment for the benefit of the client.FN6 Although the Task Force no longer opposes a “sandbox” approach, which would allegedly allow Arizona to proceed conservatively and walk back any unworkable changes, even this approach would create significant unintended consequences.

Second, the Task Force suggests that an ABS is no different from a law firm, solo practice, in-house practice, or non-profit legal services provider because lawyers are working for fees or wages. That conflation, however, fails to contemplate the fact that a supervising attorney in a law firm is equally subject to censure, suspension, and disbarment for ethical violations of subordinate attorneys. In the ABS model, the owner investors can simply walk away from a failed ABS, subject at worst to a monetary fine. Thus, comparing attorney owners of law firms to non-attorney owner or investors of an ABS is not an apt analogy.

Finally, we note that attorney’s ethical obligations follow them as they transition to a new firm, a new practice, or employment, as do the conflicts of interest prohibitions. Non-attorney owners of an ABS are not prohibited from owning an interest in multiple ABSs or other companies that might have a conflict with an ABS client, such as a Third Party Litigation Funder owning an ABS and separately funding the litigation of a client of that ABS. This presents the potential for insurmountable conflicting interests.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your consideration of our perspective. We urge the Arizona Supreme Court to reject the Amended Petition.

Please contact me directly at [email protected] with any questions.

Sincerely,

Colleen Reppen Shiel
Vice President, Deputy General Counsel
American Property Casualty Insurance Association

FN1 Colleen Reppen Shiel, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for American Property Casualty Insurance Association of America with a mailing address of 8700 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Ste. 1200S, Chicago, IL 60631-3512. Phone (847) 297-7800. Email: [email protected]. Illinois Bar No. 6193134.
FN2 http://www.azcourts.gov/Rules-Forum.
FN3 ER 5.4 Comment [1] read in part “These limitations are to protect the lawyer's professional independence of judgment.” See https://www.azbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics/rules-of-professional-conduct/.
FN4 See, e.g., New York State Bar Ass’n: Report of the Task Force on Nonlawyer Ownership, 76 Alb. L.Rev. 865, 877 (2013) (“nonlawyer control of legal practice presents considerable risks to the legal system and the justice system…and should not be permitted”).
FN5 See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics May 8, 2020 Employment Situation Summary No. USDL-20-0815, table B-1 available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.
FN6 See Arizona Bar Ethical Opinion 99-12, noting that a lawyer employed by an architectural firm may violate “ERs 5.4(c) and 1.8(f)(2) if the firm, in its role as the attorney's employer, in any way directed or regulated the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering legal services to clients. Even if the firm agreed to comply with these Rules by refraining from influencing the attorney's representation of clients, the structure of the proposed arrangement would allow the firm to indirectly influence representation of clients by controlling matters such as the attorney's time and workload.”

Sergio Escamilla
Escamilla Law Group, PLLC
2950 N 91st Ave Ste C-103
Phoenix, AZ 85037
Phone: (623) 321-0566

I hereby lodge my opposition to the elimination/modification of ER 5.4 and 5.7 and allow for Limited License Legal Practitioner (LLLP) to directly handle legal matters instead of matters being handled by a duly licensed attorney and allow non-lawyers to co-own law firms.

Appreciating the need for access of justice, allowing for the creation of non-attorney LLLP’s waters down the legal service product the public would inevitably receive if this were permitted. Understanding that the intent is to allow underserved and socio-economically challenged populations better access to “justice” a water-down version of justice is not a better way to assist. Growing up the son of two Mexican immigrants in inner-city Los Angeles in what anyone would call an “underserved” and “socio-economically challenged” neighborhood and scenario, I have to speak up for that demographic. I plainly and frequently saw others in my community being preyed upon by unscrupulous para-professionals. Many times, immigration, family law, criminal, and tax “practitioners” would overcharge and often make misrepresentations to people in our community. Often, they would charge and take money for services we later found out were not possible for them to achieve. Many times, these para-professionals would charge the same or more as lawyers. This happened over and over and the phrase “notario fraud” is well known in Los Angeles. In 2017, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office started cracking down on people who targeted immigrants for scams, prosecuting eight cases that cheated at least 300 people out of $3 million. Speaking as the son of “under-served” parents and growing up “socio-economically challenged,” I respectfully oppose any watered down justice for this demographic. Respectfully, this demographic deserves the same access to lawyers that any other demographic deserves. There are other ways to offer access to justice by utilizing true attorneys that are duly licensed. I did this myself when I opened my first law office as a lawyer in one of the more under-served parts of Los Angeles. We can teach attorneys how to learn to properly “flat fee” for specific services. We can also teach lawyers how to better allow for monthly payments on certain types of cases. There are other means to explore. However and respectfully, I do not wish to veil “access of justice” as a reason to give this demographic in need of legal services sub-par, non-attorney, para-professionals help. Respectfully, that is not the answer.

Further, I vehemently oppose allowing non-lawyers to co-own law firms. Attorneys are bound by ethical rules and guides, in addition to committing years of education and training to honing our skills and practice. Non-attorneys are not bound to the ethical rules attorneys are bound to adhere too. I can see an attorney and non-lawyer owner clash on issues related to a non-lawyer equity partner requesting the attorney to perform tasks that the attorney will not want to perform due to ethical considerations. Further, if a non-lawyer is an equity partner in the firm, it becomes easier for that non-lawyer to circumvent ethics by telling non-lawyer staff to perform certain tasks all while using firm letterhead and bypassing attorneys. In a way, they would have easy access to hijacking law firms into doing their bidding. This is troubling and scary, and quite frankly, an embarrassment to our profession should this materialize.

Lindsay Bautista
565 W Chandler Blvd, Suite 215
Chandler, AZ 85225
#032984

I oppose the Petition for the proposed rule changes. I reiterate the concerns of my colleagues that have previously expressed their opposition to the changes.

Juan Ramirez
2950 N 91st Ave. Suite C-103
Phoenix, AZ 85037
(623)877-3600
[email protected]

I also strongly oppose the proposed petition. Particularly the amendment to abrogate ER 5.4. I disagree that this is a well-thought out proposal. I believe the good intentions are far out-weighed by the bad consequence that would result if this is approved.

Helen R. Davis
Managing Partner
The Cavanagh Law Firm, P.A.
1850 N. Central Avenue
Suite 2400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-322-4008
[email protected]

I would like to add my voice to strongly oppose the petition numbered R-20-0034. I do not wish to reiterate the extremely thoughtful and detailed comments that have been posted. Suffice it to say that I do not think this petition, especially regarding elimination of ER 5.4 to allow lawyers and non-lawyers to jointly own firms. I also very strongly oppose the provisions that will allow non-lawyer document preparers to speak for clients in family court. I agree that access to justice is important, but not at the expense of our profession and the protection of the public against shysters and incompetent persons.

Antonio Ceritelli
2950 N, 91st Ave suite c-103
Phoenix, AZ 58037
6238773600
[email protected]

I oppose the proposed changes due to the compelling arguments previously submitted by the opposition.

Cristina Perez Hesano
State Bar No. 027023
Perez Law Group, PLLC
7508 N. 59th Avenue
Glendale Arizona 85301
602-730-7100
[email protected]

I write today in opposition of the proposed Petition. Should this Petition be passed despite the legal community's overwhelming opposition, a well-intended attempt to expand access to the legal system will create unintended and disastrous results. For one, there is no guarantee that eliminating ER 5.4 will result in the innovation of the delivery of legal services. However, what can be guaranteed is that a lawyer's ability to independently exercise his/her professional judgment on their client's behalf free from non-lawyers, will be stripped away should entrepreneurial relationships with non-lawyers be allowed. No evidence has been presented that allowing non-lawyers to own and control law firms and/or the creation of LLLPs will “expand access to justice” or “protect the public.” Additionally, ABS and LLLPs create a serious concern regarding sufficient training and monitoring of those employees placed within these entities, who would be the ones ultimately tasked with providing advice to individuals in the State of Arizona. Those in need of legal services will be left to gamble as to whether or not the person providing them the advice is knowledgeable and competent. Throughout the past decade, my office has seen and has consistently repaired the work of document preparers and "notaries." Historically, the Spanish speaking community has been harmed as a result of cheap and incompetent businesses promising "legal services." These businesses do not have the same ethical standards and regulations as attorneys and are often fueled by greed. I have repeatedly encountered members of this vulnerable community be the recipients of frauds committed against them and/or explainable and unjustified errors committed because they placed their trust in a person/business claiming to have the appropriate legal background. Giving legitimacy to entities such as ABS and LLLPs increases the potential to harm to the public and does not serve to "protect the public."

This Petition if passed, will ultimately hinder the profession by limiting an attorney's ability to provide ethical and independent counsel for their clients. It will open the flood gates to any person who will not be held to the same ethical standards, who will not be required to have the same education and training, who can "affiliate" with a lawyer to produce revenue. The legal profession will be monetized and cheapened to a "one size fits all" standard.

For these reasons, I ask that you not adopt this Petition.

Eric Hill
2727 S Playa
Mesa, AZ 85202
[email protected]
Bar No. 029890

I would like to register my opposition to the petition in its entirety, and I join in the comments of those who have described the problems that it would create.

Monica A. Limón-Wynn
1400 E. Southern Avenue, Suite 915
Tempe, Arizona 85282-8008
480.946.0680
[email protected]
Arizona State Bar No. 019174

I am business litigator and strongly oppose Petition R-20-0034 and its proposed amendments to eliminate ER 5.4 and allow non-lawyers to co-own and manage law firms and make decisions regarding client matters, and to create the Limited License Legal Practitioner (LLLP). If this amendment passes, there is no doubt in my mind that it will prove to be a disservice to the businesses and individuals in need of legal representation.

I witnessed first-hand how the profit motives of a nonlawyer (i.e. a disbarred attorney) who owned a law firm (I was unaware of the disbarment) were diametrically opposed to a licensed attorney's perspective of prioritizing the client's interests in a litigation matter. Without the requirement to comply with all the same ethical rules as a licensed attorney (and the risks and consequences for failing to do so), clients' interests will suffer. If passed, this change will forever lower the ethical standards of the legal profession in Arizona. The numerous types of conflicts of interest alone should be reason enough to reject this amendment. I join the numerous attorneys urging its rejection. It will create FAR MORE problems than it purports to improve.

As for the LLLP proposal it will not "fill the gap" for those in need of legal services -- it will widen it. The proposed changer is patronizing and minimizes the needs of middle- to low-income individuals of our community, or those for whom English is a second language. I have seen too many individuals and small business owners who thought they were being protected by a "professional" and now find themselves with a terrible contract. Respectfully, when is the last time that the drafters of this Petition represented a client who was the unfortunate recipient of services provided by a legal document preparer or other non-lawyer that left the client in a terrible predicament due to the lack of sufficient legal knowledge? Without experiencing the detrimental effect that can be suffered from someone who is providing legal advice when they lack the knowledge to do so, the last thing you should do is to promote and enable an environment that will create more victims. I have represented clients (including on a pro bono basis) who now find themselves a party to a lawsuit because they went the "inexpensive" route and paid a professional who was not a lawyer (governed by ethical rules) such as a "business broker," to draft an agreement for them to sell or buy a business. But, due to the "professional's" lack of legal knowledge and understanding as to how contracts are interpreted, how to protect a client's interests and what happens at trial, the client is in serious jeopardy. An inexperienced lawyer would at least be guided by the ethical rules to either refer the client to another lawyer with the right expertise or ensure that he or she enlisted the assistance of a skilled lawyer in serving the client's needs -- or risk being sued. The LLLP will create misplaced confidence for those clients in need of legal epresentation into thinking they are hiring a professional who can genuinely serve their legal needs. The answer is not to allow non-lawyer to provide legal advice and legal services, but to increase funding for Community Legal Services and to make funding available for innovative solutions such as the ASU Law Group.

organizations, like the ASU Law Group.