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





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. 


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 08 Feb 2024 09:38 AM by  James C. Mitchell
R-24-0030 Rules 32(b) and (c), Rules of the Supreme Court
 3 Replies
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
Stacy Skankey
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

10 Jan 2024 03:32 PM
    Stacy Skankey
    Goldwater Institute
    500 E. Coronado Rd.
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    Phone: (602) 462-5000
    Fax: (602) 256-7045
    [email protected]
    AZ Bar # 035589
    Petition to Amend Rules 32(b) and (c), Rules of the Supreme Court

    Filed: January 10, 2024

    Would amend Rules 32(b) and (c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona to eliminate the authority to levy State Bar membership dues for non-regulatory functions.

    Comments must be submitted by no later than Wednesday, May 1, 2024, and any reply by a petitioner must be submitted no later than Monday, June 3, 2024.
    Steven R. Simon
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    20 Jan 2024 10:06 AM
    Steven Simon Law, PLLC
    1815 Purdy Ave
    Miami Beach, FL 33139-1425
    Office: 305-972-6074

    This proposed amendment is critical to safeguard the 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights and the 14th Amendment due process property rights of attorneys in the monies that we are required to pay as dues in order to maintain our bar licenses. Right now the Arizona Bar is charging over $500 annually for basic membership while I am only paying $265 a year for my Florida Bar dues and there is no good reason for this cost differential. Extra frills that the Arizona Bar governors want to spend should be paid by voluntary contributions.
    Carrie Ann Donnell
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    02 Feb 2024 11:45 AM
    Carrie Ann Donnell
    American Juris Link
    7000 N 16th St. #120-155
    Phoenix, AZ 85020
    [email protected]

    I support the proposed rule to reduce State Bar membership dues to the cost of regulatory functions. I have worked in public interest law my entire career, providing pro bono services to the most vulnerable clients in Arizona. I have also offered legal services in Arizona at very low market rates while working part-time as a stay-at-home mom. It is critical that attorney bar dues are minimal in order to maximize access to justice. Any extra overhead, even a few hundred dollars a year, increases client costs and reduces lawyer availability for those who can least afford it. This is unjustifiable when the extra fees are completely unrelated to the lawyer's qualifications or ability to adequately represent her clients -- and especially when the fees are for services, functions, and positions that the lawyer doesn't use or actively opposes. For these reasons, I support the proposed rule.
    James C. Mitchell
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    08 Feb 2024 09:38 AM
    James C. Mitchell
    Rua António Gonçalves
    LT 4, Apt 3A
    3040-375 Coimbra, Portugal
    [email protected]
    U.S. phone 520-907-2478

    I write to support this proposal and to stress a requirement for the legitimate regulatory activities suggested by Petitioners: to be essential, a program must work. No mandatory bar function should be undertaken without proof that it is likely to achieve its asserted goals. No existing function should be continued without periodic proof of performance.

    One State Bar function identified by Petitioners as permissible is enforcing mandatory continuing legal education. Permissible, but unproven. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to reduce wasted time, onerous costs, and the State Bar’s temptation to push political viewpoints. At present, however, MCLE as imposed here fails any realistic standard of necessity for regulation of the practice of law.

    Consider the recent appraisal of a distinguished task force appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court to study lawyer competency. After a two-year research project, the task force in 2023 “found no scientific study or empirical evidence to support the claim that compulsory CLE is an effective means of maintaining and enhancing lawyer competence, and after 40 years of mandatory CLE in Georgia and elsewhere, the absence of such support is striking. And yet, mandatory CLE requirements impose real costs upon lawyers, year after year.”

    That conclusion is astonishing for its clear-eyed candor. Bar regulators nationwide have avoided any careful examination of MCLE for decades. To my knowledge, the only other state to rigorously study its forced CLE scheme was Michigan. There, the mandate was rescinded, with one Michigan Supreme Court justice finding that it had “no more value than chicken soup.”

    MCLE’s futility is obvious to millions of its dragooned customers, but a hard sell to bar associations that cherish their cut of the course fees and the warm fuzzy bragging rights for promoting “education.” As I noted in 1999, MCLE represents “the unseemly mating of cash cow and public relations bull.” Our State Bar once boasted about the profit it was making, apparently forgetting that the State Bar’s CLE profit was the members’ loss.

    As the Georgia report indicates, customary rationalizations for compelled CLE are crumbling in their vacuum of verifiable value. Over the years, however, some MCLE supporters have attempted to thwart informed criticism by arguing that the mandate is a done deal. “That train has left the station,” they say.

    Yes, but what a muddled metaphor. Nobody ever bought an overpriced train ticket for the purpose of leaving a station. Travelers want to get somewhere. MCLE’s asserted destination was always a mirage, a mythical land where forced torpid seminars protect the public and ensure that all the lawyers are above average. That train has not arrived. For all we know, it’s off the rails and spinning its wheels in the desert sand somewhere, feigning optimism by puffing, “I think I can, I think I can….”

    But it can’t, given the proven paucity of evidence supporting it. That train is a half-century late in some states, thirty-five years in Arizona. This is no way to run a railroad or regulate a learned profession.

    Petitioners’ proposal would help eliminate the mandatory bar mission creep that sucked Arizona into the MCLE swamp. It could help lead to MCLE's elimination or at least to substantial mitigation of its harm. I therefore respectfully ask this Court to approve the requested rule.

    The Georgia Task Force report:
    (I am a former member of the State Bar of Arizona. Resigned in good standing upon retiring and moving to Portugal.)
    You are not authorized to post a reply.