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 [email protected].



Message from the Chief Justice

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. 

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE READ: 

Contact Information

Please include all of 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 May 2022 10:54 AM by  David Euchner
R-21-0041 Rule 42 (ER 1.2), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court
 4 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Brianna Farmer
New Member
Posts:10 New Member

--
25 Aug 2021 06:33 PM
    Filed on Behalf of:
    Honorable Paul McMurdie, Chair
    Arizona Supreme Court Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee
    1501 W. Washington St., Suite 104
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    602-452-3656
    [email protected]
    Bar No. 010386

    Filed: August 25, 2021

    Would amend ER 1.2, Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, to add an additional subpart providing that despite a general rule against assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer know is criminal, a lawyer may counsel or assist a client regarding conduct expressly permitted by Arizona state law, even if it violates federal law or the law of another jurisdiction.

    Comments must be submitted on or before Monday, May 2, 2022.
    Any reply by a petitioner must be submitted on or before Wednesday, June 1, 2022.
    Attachments
    Patricia A. Sallen
    New Member
    Posts:9 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2022 05:48 PM
    Patricia A. Sallen
    3420 N. 42nd St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85018
    480-290-4841
    [email protected]
    bar number 012338
    Attachments
    Ashleigh Hansen
    New Member
    Posts:9 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2022 07:34 PM
    Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, Chair
    Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee
    1501 W. Washington St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85007

    Committee Staff:
    Aaron Nash
    Ashleigh Hansen
    602-452-3378

    The Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee (ARC) submits the attached comment to this Petition.
    Attachments
    George Riemer
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    02 May 2022 10:15 AM
    Arizona Supreme Court Rules Petition No. R-21-0041

    The Court has rejected a similar amendment to Rule 1.2 twice before.

    How clear is the intended scope of proposed Rule 1.2(e)? Does the proposed rule, in the words of the petition, “clarify a lawyer’s ethical ability to assist a client with matters expressly permitted under state law, even when the law may conflict with federal law, until or unless the state law is declared invalid.”? Petition, page 14.

    Would it allow a lawyer to counsel or assist a client regarding conduct expressly permitted by Arizona law – any current or future Arizona law – notwithstanding the lawyer’s knowledge the conduct is criminal or fraudulent under federal law? The only proviso would be that the lawyer counsel the client about the legal consequences, under other applicable law, of the client’s proposed course of conduct. No mention is made of the lawyer’s need for counsel about the legal consequences, under other applicable law, of the lawyer’s proposed course of conduct.

    Notwithstanding – despite; in spite of; regardless of. Despite/In spite of/Regardless of Rule 1.2(d), can lawyers engage in the conduct permitted by proposed new Rule 1.2(e) even if they know the conduct is criminal or fraudulent under other applicable law?

    What about Arizona municipal law? If adopted, does the amendment cover a lawyer counseling or assisting a client regarding conduct expressly permitted by municipal law - any current or future municipal law - notwithstanding that the lawyer knows the conduct is criminal or fraudulent under state or federal law?

    This proposed amendment creates more issues than the petition suggests it will solve. Concerns about the possibility of discipline of lawyers for advising or assisting clients under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the Safe and Smart Arizona Act have morphed into an overly broad and ambiguous exception to the prohibition against counseling clients to engage, or assisting clients, in conduct lawyers know is criminal or fraudulent. The Court should deny the petition.

    George A. Riemer
    State Bar of Arizona Member No. 017034
    23206 N Pedregosa Drive
    Sun City West, AZ 85375
    [email protected]
    623-238-5039
    David Euchner
    New Member
    Posts:29 New Member

    --
    02 May 2022 10:54 AM
    ARIZONA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    David J. Euchner, SB#021768
    33 N. Stone Ave., 21st Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701
    TEL: (520) 724-6800
    E-Mail: [email protected]

    Attached is the comment of Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
    Attachments
    Topic is locked