Arizona Judicial Branch


Register       Login

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its recent Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


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. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 19 Jun 2012 12:28 PM by  DTIERNEY
R-11-0042 Petition to Abrogate Rule 16(g)(2) and Rule 84, Form 3, Ariz. R. Civ. P.
 1 Replies
Topic is locked
Author Messages

22 Dec 2011 11:59 AM
    Petition to abrogate Rule 16(g)(2) and Rule 84, Form 3, Ariz. R. Civ. P.

    Would eliminate requirement of filing an Alternative Dispute Resolution report with the court

    John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 200
    Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288

    Filed December 22, 2011

    Comments due May 21, 2012.

    ADOPTED, effective January 1, 2013.

    19 Jun 2012 12:28 PM
    David C. Tierney
    4250 N. Drinkwater Blvd 4th Floor
    Scottsdale, AZ 85251-3693

    This comment on the Petition to Abrogate Rule 16(g)(2) and Rule 84, Form 3 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Petition”) is made on behalf of the State Bar of Arizona Alternative Dispute Resolution Section Executive Council (the “Section”). The Petition seeks to abrogate Rule 16(g)(2) and the related form because “lawyers have tended to ignore the requirement” of the Rule regarding conferring about alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) and reporting to the court regarding that conference.
    As noted in the Petition, the “laudable purpose of the rule is to promote early consideration of ADR.” The Section supports efforts to promote consideration of ADR by the parties in litigation, and raised concerns about the filing of the petition prior to its filing with the State Bar that abrogating Rule 16(g)(2) would have a negative impact on parties’ use of ADR and encouragement by trial courts to utilize those procedures. As a result, the Section conferred with the State Bar’s Civil Practice and Procedure Committee (“CPPC”) regarding the proposed changes to Rule 16(g)(2) and the related form. As noted in the Petition, CPPC is in the process of reviewing case management procedures under Rule 16 and trial-setting procedures under Rule 38.1, which would include a provision to expressly require consideration of ADR and encouraging parties to participate in ADR.
    After consultation with CPPC, the Section concluded that because the form is not being used and the current Rule has no “sanctions,” it would not oppose the abrogation of the Rule. Further, the Section continues to support efforts by the courts to encourage participation in ADR, and believes that changes to Rule 16 and 38.1 should be made to require that the Court ascertain that ADR had been attempted (or there was good cause not to do so) before trial was scheduled. This is a practice now being followed by judges in Maricopa County (as well as other counties) in civil cases, and has had good results. The Section is working with CPPC and the State Bar Rules Committee to propose changes to Rules 16 and Rule 38.1 which will propose adoption of this practice in amendments to the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
    Topic is locked