My name is Paul Mooney. My Arizona State Bar No. is 006708. My email address is:
[email protected]. I was admitted to the Arizona Bar in May of 1981. I spent my first 28 years at Fennemore Craig, P.C. in Phoenix, and I've spent the last 15-plus years practicing in a small, boutique law firm, first in Mesa and now in Scottsdale. I am writing to support the proposed amendment because during my nearly 44 years of practicing law, I've had the opportunity to practice before state and federal courts and other tribunals in 31 different states. This is primarily due to the type of legal work I specialize in, which is essentially the same in nearly every jurisdiction in the country. Indeed, the experts who work in this area consist of just a few highly-trained individuals who testify throughout the country in such cases. As such, having lawyers who are familiar with these witnesses and the issues that arise in such cases is vital to the effective (and efficient) representation of such clients. With the exception of those cases that can be tried in federal courts (which in my area of specialization is limited to railroads and airlines), that has required me to gain admission using "pro hac vice" procedures on numerous occasions. That process has become more burdensome and expensive as many states have implemented fees and instituted procedures that seem designed solely to discourage clients from using the lawyer(s) of their choice. And while there may have at one time been legitimate reasons for the parochial attitudes of state bars in each state, those reasons have largely disappeared in this modern era of legal specialization and Internet access to the laws of each state. I have found the ability to gain access to the courts in many states is tied - at least indirectly - to the requirements for admission of out-of-state attorneys in my home state. Clearly, the trend nationally is towards more liberal admission of out-of-state lawyers. Moreover, given that the pro hac vice fees that are now imposed in many states (including Arizona) are virtually equal to the full-time bar fees, there is little incentive in a case that may last several years to have to annually renew such limited admissions just to participate in a single case. If this proposed rule is adopted, it would make it much easier to become admitted in reciprocal-admission states. For many of the cases I've handled, this would make sense for the clients. It's time to acknowledge that "the Law" has become a highly-specialized profession in which the best lawyers in a given specialty should be able to cross state lines in the same way specialized doctors and other experts already do. Thus, I favor any rule change that would make this easier to do, which is my perception of the proposed rule change. Simply put, it's time for Arizona to do what many other state have already done and relax its rules to allow what is already happening using the antiquated pro hac vice procedures. In my experience, judges who preside over these cases do a very effective job of managing their courtrooms, irrespective of where the lawyers before them call home.