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 23 Jun 2020 09:44 AM by  Yolanda Fox
R-20-0034 Petition to Restlye and Amend Supreme Court Rule 31; Adopt New Rule 33.1; and Amend Rules 32, 41, 42 (Various ERs from 1.0 to 5.7), 46-51, 54-58, 60, and 75-76
 243 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 13 of 13 << < 910111213
Author Messages
Yolanda Fox
Basic Member
Posts:158 Basic Member

--
27 May 2020 11:49 AM
Tonya K. MacBeth
Burch & Cracchiolo, PC
1850 North Central, 17th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-234-9926
SBN #024140

Dear Committee,

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...s-justice/ [https://perma.cc/94T8-3456].

“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 will not naturally coalesce around the non-income generating aspect of supervision or the obligation to maintain the integrity of the profession.

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.

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.
Yolanda Fox
Basic Member
Posts:158 Basic Member

--
27 May 2020 12:08 PM
Dominic Majors (#35020)
Majors Law Group
4667 S. Lakeshore Drive, Suite 5.
Tempe, AZ 85282

I write in strong opposition to the petition to eliminate ER 5.4. The elimination of ER 5.4 will create an irreparable harm to the legal profession through the introduction of non-lawyers who are not subject to the scrutiny of the bar. The elimination of ER 5.4 will be disastrous as non-lawyer investors will seek returns on their investments much like a shareholder to a corporation.

I strongly oppose the elimination of ER 5.4.
Yolanda Fox
Basic Member
Posts:158 Basic Member

--
27 May 2020 12:19 PM
Robert L. Greer
Bar No. 005372
1423 S. Higley Rd.
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone 480-539-9400

I have followed with interest the comments by members of the bar addressing the proposed rule changes. I have not attempted a statistical analysis but the response of members of the bar is overwhelmingly opposed to the petition. The ratio is on the order of 50 to 1. The support of the members of the governing board of the State Bar for the comment on behalf of the bar is 13 in favor, eight opposed and two abstaining. There is a disconnect between the governing board in the membership of the bar – at least those who were concerned enough to comment. I think the differences are great enough to conclude that the governing board's support of the petition does not reflect the majority of the membership.
Yolanda Fox
Basic Member
Posts:158 Basic Member

--
23 Jun 2020 09:44 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

Petitioner submits this Reply and Final Amended Petition pursuant to the staggered comment period and Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Supreme Court. This Final Amended Petition proposes to restyle and amend Rule 31; amend Rules 32, 41, 42 (ERs 1.0, 1.5-1.8, 1.17, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.7, 8.3), 43, 46-51, 54-58, 60, 63, 66-67, and 75-nd 76, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.; and adopt new Rule 33.1, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. The petition proposes substantial rule changes to implement recommendations resulting from the Task Force on the Delivery of Legal Services extensive review, fact-finding and analysis of the changing consumer legal market and the well-documented access-to-justice gap. This Final Amended Petition contains subsequent amendments resulting from extensive consideration by a subsequent workgroup on entity regulation established at the recommendation of the Task Force of comments to this forum and others.

In coordination with this submission, amended proposals for ACJA 7-209 regulatory framework for ABSs) and 7-210 (containing the licensing, examination, Code of Conduct and other regulations for LLLPs) were posted in the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration Forum: https://www.azcourts.gov/AZ-Supreme...nistration

For additional information contact Jennifer Albright, Sr. Policy Analyst, AOC at jalbright@courts.az.gov.
Attachments
Topic is locked
Page 13 of 13 << < 910111213