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 20 Mar 2018 08:15 PM by  ChicagoAZ
R-17-0048 Admission on Motion- Rule 34 f(4) A.R.S. Supreme Court Rules
 1 Replies
Topic is locked
Author Messages
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

05 Oct 2017 12:24 AM
    Name: Kenneth C Smith
    Address: 2728 E Minton Street, Mesa, AZ 85213
    Phone: 480-567-6663
    Fax: 480-304-9299
    Email: [email protected]
    New Mexico Bar# 149157

    This amendment would delete Supreme Court Rule 34(f)(4), which makes a person ineligible for bar admission on motion if the person failed to achieve an Arizona scaled score on the uniform bar examination within five years of the date of filing an application.

    I would like to address my concern for Rule 34 for Application for Admission under A.R.S. Supreme Court Rules. Changes were taken place on January 1, 2016. More specifically Section f(4) of which states:

    "An applicant who has failed a bar examination administered in this jurisdiction or who has passed the uniform bar examination in another jurisdiction but failed to achieve the Arizona
    scaled score within five years of the date of filing an application under this rule shall not be eligible for admission on motion."

    In an effort to provide some background to my situation (and several others). I took the Arizona bar exam Feb 2016 and I received 7 points under passing. I decided to transfer my score to New Mexico and practice Federal Law instead of taking the bar exam again. I have a large family and it was just too difficult for me to but my life on hold again for another 2 months or so. At the time I transferred my UBE score, I was under the impression (as were many other colleagues) that after a few years I could apply for admission on motion and avoid having to taken the bar exam again. To my surprise, I know understand that I'm not eligible to apply for admission by motion because I took the bar in Arizona and did not pass with a qualifying score. And by the way the statute is written, it could also be interpreted that after 5 years one would be eligible but I was told by the attorney admission department that it means I would not be eligible at all.

    While I feel fortunate to be able to practice law and for the ability to transfer a score with a reciprocal UBE state (which we were not able to do previously), I also feel like it is discriminating that an attorney who was admitted in good standing to a state could not waive into a state because his score was a few points off. Before the UBE and likely before January 2016 (starting in 2012 when UBE began in Arizona) if someone was admitted in a reciprocal state, and they met all the other requirements regardless of UBE score, they could likely become admitted by motion. So now, someone that sends an application that received a UBE score of between 260 and 272 (lowest acceptable UBE score for a state and below 273) between 2012 and December 31, 2015 and has all the other requirements could be eligible for admission on motion, but not for someone that applied on January 1, 2016 and after. It is my belief that this rule is going to create a lot of pushback and while I understand why the Supreme Court would create the statute this way (to protect the public), I feel other less drastic measures could be taken to ensure the protection of the public from incompetent legal representation.

    I strongly feel that if an applicant can become licensed in a reciprocal state and can demonstrate that he/she has practiced in good standing for 3 of last 5 years, it should not matter that their score was under "273". At this time, if an applicant was licensed in another UBE state with a score below Arizona, the very lowest acceptable score would be 260. While this score is not high, it is not so low to where a person could be held to be incompetent. Some people experience test anxiety and do not test well, but that doesn't mean they could not be an exceptional attorney.

    If an applicant can get licensed in another state, even if their score is lower than 273, they should not automatically be disqualified. I believe if someone has passed a character and fitness in another state, has practiced in good standing 3 of 5 years (or even 5 of 7 years) and has demonstrated to be competent and ethical during that time period, the applicant should be eligible for admission on motion.

    Furthermore, after researching some of the other reciprocal states New York, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Washington State and Idaho to name a few do not seem to have the same UBE score disqualifying language and those that have demonstrated to have good standing in a state along with the active practice and good moral character required appear to be eligible. I strongly hope that this petition will be given all the weight it deserves and that Rule 34(f)4 can be removed. While I know it is always possible for one to put their life/families on hold and take the bar again, I feel that the spirit of admission by motion is being jeopardized.

    Filed October 5, 2017.

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 2018.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend Rule 34(f)(4), Rules of the Supreme Court =DENIED.
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    20 Mar 2018 08:15 PM
    Commenter’s Name: Adrian Saenz
    Committee Name, if applicable: N/A
    Mailing Address: 212 W. Washington St. Chicago IL, 60606
    Phone Number: 602-475-5252
    E-mail Address: [email protected]
    If you are an attorney: IL Bar #6322791

    I am writing in support of the amendment to remove Supreme Court Rule 34(f)(4). I believe the language in the rule does not achieve what the rule and what the UBE were intended to accomplish. An attorney’s ability to become licensed and practice in any state should not be taken lightly and should provide a strict enough threshold to bar unworthy attorneys and protect the public from the unlawful practice of law. However, these regulations should be balanced and strive to not prejudice against legitimate attorneys transferring into the state and provide the pubic with their acceptable knowledge and care.

    According to other jurisdictions, a persons experience in good standing outweighs the attorney’s original score. Barring an attorney, whose has proven they are knowledgeable and trustworthy for a certain number of years in a different jurisdiction, does nothing to promote the value of the Arizona Bar. Rather, it creates burden for attorneys wishing to provide a service to both Arizona citizens and its economy.

    Personally, I took the Arizona Bar in July of 2015 and failed by 1 point. Although, I had already moved to Chicago and began studying for the February Illinois Bar, I still planned on one day returning to my home state through reciprocity. I passed the Illinois Bar as planned, and have been a practicing attorney in good standing since. However, I am disappointed to hear that my skills as an attorney for the past five years is still not acceptable to overcome a single point.

    That being said, I ask that the Supreme Court Rule 34(f)(4) be removed. Or, in the alternative, provide less disqualifying language or additional and reasonable parameters for applicants to pass is a more appropriate solution than the current law.
    Topic is locked