Vicki Gotkin
5136 N. Calle Bosque
Tucson, AZ 85718

I support the Petition to revise the rules for admission by motion with reciprocity for the reasons set forth in Mr. Burr's petition, as well as those set forth below. Mobility in our society is crucial for advancement in many professions in the United States. Professional couples are the norm, rather than the exception, and if one member of the professional couple is in essence "barred" from moving because of the burden of taking a bar examination after many years of a successful and ethical practice, it may impede the other member of the professional couple from advancing in his/her career. In academia, for example, faculty often need to meet tenure requirements at a prestigious institution, and to do so, must often move to an institution that is more closely aligned with their field than another at which they began a career. If that individual is married or partnered with an attorney whose practice is limited to one jurisdiction unless s/he takes another bar exam, both members of the couple and their families may suffer. Similarly, our country's population is aging. Younger members of families are required to take care of their elderly parents. People need to have more flexibility in where they live, and removing the artificial burden of proving competence through an exam will lighten the load of making choices to be closer to family in a time when care is expensive, and mobility in the first instance is what drew people away from their now-aging parents. Therefore, I believe that it is important to ensure mobility, not only for sake of clients whose interests are affected by lack of continuity of representation, but also for the sake of the attorneys themselves, whose personal lives require them to make adjustments for their partners and their families.

A bar examination admittedly serves the purpose of ensuring that new attorneys possess the competence and understanding of general law. It is a broad-based test of such competency. However, as petitioner notes, once an attorney is "seasoned" and experienced in the practice of law, and perhaps has chosen a specialty or concentration of practice, then it should be sufficient to protect the public that the attorney has a clean bill of ethical health, and is required to study the law of the jurisdiction to which s/he desires to move, without having to undergo the additional hurdle of studying for and passing another bar exam.

I strongly support the petition.

Comment submitted by:

William J. Maledon, No. 003670
Mark I. Harrison, No. 001226
David B. Rosenbaum, No. 009819
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
2929 North Central Avenue
21st Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793
602-640-9000
602-640-9050 (fax)
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]

Elliot Glicksman, P.L.L.C.
145 S. Sixth Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520)628-8878
Fax (520)882-8618
State Bar No. 006010

I support the Petition. A seasoned and competent lawyer from another state is not incompetent to practice law in Arizona simply because the lawyer has long forgotten the specifics of substantive law that have nothing to do with the lawyer's practice. For instance, a seasoned civil litigator from another state is not incompetent simply because she cannot articulate the rule against perpetuities or has forgetten the rules of criminal procedure. For seasoned lawyers wanting to come to Arizona, comptence and fitness to practice can and should be determined by useful criteria, such as experience, reputation, and a clean disciplinary record, and not by the ability to regurgitate substantive law that has been memorized solely for the purpose of passing an exam. If the reason we do not want admission on motion is to protect the business interests of Arizona attorneys, then let's be honest about it and stop saying that the bar exam tests competence.

Robert G. Fisher 015063

I support the petition, but the proposal does not go far enough. The proposal only extends the opportunity to be admitted on motion in Arizona if the originating jurisdiction offers reciprocity. Similar to the process now utilized by the District of Columbia, the reciprocity requirement should be dropped.

A. Louis Dorny
Arizona 023631
California 212054
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, California 90017-2553
Telephone: (213) 624-3044
Facsimile: (213) 624-8060

Jennifer H. Fan
608 S. Berry Pine Rd.
Rapid City, SD 57702-0001
605-718-4554

I support the petition for the reasons set forth in Mr. Burr's petition.

My situation is more unique, but I feel it speaks directly to the purpose of this petition. I am a licensed attorney in Arizona and had practiced for many years. However, I am now currently living in South Dakota. I moved home in order to help take care of my father who is ill. Though South Dakota does accept admission by motion, it has a reciprocity clause. Because Arizona does not accept admission by motion, I am barred from applying for admission by motion in South Dakota. My practice in Arizona was limited to one area and did not include Property Law, Torts, or some of the other areas tested by the bar exam. This in no way makes me an inferior attorney. Simply, like most attorneys who have long since graduated law school, my practice area has been narrowed to basically one field. Therefore, in order to take the South Dakota bar exam, I am required to re-study all the required fields. Given that I am to practice in the same area of law, this seems like a colossal waste of time and resources. Moreover, it will not improve my current practice. I would like to further point out that attorneys are required to take CLE classes to maintain their license, and in this way, attorneys are able to keep up with the most current changes of law, specifically in the field of their particular practice. I feel this is a much better measure of ensuring that a lawyer practicing in Arizona, or any other state for that matter, stays current and competent. This is something that the bar exam does not provide. For these reasons, and more, I strongly support the petition.

Jennifer Fan
Rapid City, South Dakota

Stacie H Wittenberg
7788 E. Phantom Way
Scottsdale, Az 85255
480-907-6219
Ohio Supreme Court number 0072460


RE: R-06-0017 Revision Of The Rules For Admission To The Bar Of Arizona by swittenberg
I support the petition for the reasons set forth in Mr. Burr's petition.
I am an attorney licensed to practice in the sate of Ohio. My family moved here this past summer as my husband received a wonderful job opportunity as a physician after his Fellowship that we could not pass up. In Ohio, I limited my practice area to Creditor's Rights, specifically, consumer bankruptcy law. My practice did not include many of the areas tested on the bar exam, as bankruptcy is governed by the United States Bankruptcy Code and is thus Federal law.
Requiring attorneys that are licensed out of state to take the bar exam will not make them better attorneys. For the most part, attorneys practice in just a few areas of the law and stay competent via continuing legal education classes. There is no need to take the state bar exam and be tested on each and every subject again in order to be a strong and competent attorney.
For the aforementioned reasons, I strongly support Mr. Burr's petition.

Stacie H Wittenberg

RE: R-06-0017 Revision Of The Rules For Admission To The Bar Of Arizona

I support the petition for the reasons set forth in Mr. Burr's petition. Arizona lawyers are at a disadvantage, nationally, because we do not permit reciprocal admission in Arizona and thus our lawyers are not eligible for reciprocal admission in other jurisdictions.

Lynda C. Shely
6501 E. Greenway Pkwy, suite 103-406
Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2067
Phone: (480) 905-7237

RE: R-06-0017 Revision Of The Rules For Admission To The Bar Of Arizona

I support the petition for the reasons set forth in Mr. Burr's petition and the Multijurisiction Task Force Report. Arizona lawyers are more frequently involved in multijurisdictional matters. Our admission requirements put our Arizona lawyers at a disadvantage, nationally, because we do not permit reciprocal admission in Arizona and thus our lawyers are not eligible for reciprocal admission in other jurisdictions.

Fran Johansen
519 South 72nd Street
Mesa, AZ 85208
Phone: 480-807-5184

Linda P. McKenzie
Jones Vargas
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway
3rd Floor South
Las Vegas, NV 89169
702-862-3300

I oppose the proposed rule change for each of the reasons set forth in the "Con" statement pasted below from the AZ Bar website at http://www.myazbar.org/admissiononmotion/.

The proposed rule change would make most lawyers in the Nation eligible for unlimited admission to practice law in Arizona, without being tested on their knowledge of Arizona law, rules or practice. As a Sunbelt state with the fastest-growing population in the Nation, Arizona will become the perfect target for expansion by large out-of-state firms, including those with substantial advertising budgets, as well as retiring lawyers.

Proponents of this change argue that eliminating Arizona’s bar exam requirement will make Arizona lawyers eligible for admission on motion in other states. Our Sunbelt neighbors, however—California, New Mexico and Nevada—do not permit admission on motion. Thus, this proposal will simply not enlarge or improve the practice of most Arizona lawyers.

Moreover, we should not expose Arizona Courts, lawyers or their clients to an influx of lawyers whose commitment to Arizona law is so tenuous that they are unwilling or unable to take or pass the State Bar exam—the only uniform, objective test of a lawyer’s knowledge of Arizona’s substantive and procedural law. The Character and Fitness Committee does not test this substantive knowledge; nor do five years of practice outside Arizona. To allow untested lawyers to hold themselves out to the general public as Arizona lawyers will overtax the regulatory capacity of the State Bar and is not likely to serve the best interests of most Arizona consumers, Arizona State Courts or opposing parties.

James H. Dyer
State Bar No. 005581
President, Pima County Bar Association
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 101
Tucson, AZ 85701-1137
(520) 623-8258

Please see attached "Comment by the Pima County Bar Association on Petition"

Comment in Opposition to Petition submitted by:

John J. Bouma (#001358)
Daniel J. McAuliffe (#003435)
Andrew F. Halaby (#017251)
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
One Arizona Center
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
(602) 382-6000
(602) 382-6070 (fax)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

R-06-0017 Revision of the Rules For Admission to the Bar of Arizona, Rules of the Supreme Court

Michael Ian Dorsett
Advocacy Manager
Association of Corporate Counsel
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036-5425
[email protected]
202-293-4103 ext. 312
202-293-4701 fax
http://www.acc.com

Attached is the Association of Corporate Counsel’s comment letter in support of the petition to revise the rules for admission by motion with reciprocity.

PDF & DOC Attached.


ACC is the voice of the in-house bar, fighting for both our members' professional rights and their clients' representational needs: we stand up for corporate counsel and the issues that concern them most: before the courts, the media, government agencies, legislatures, and bar groups

R-06-0017 Revision of the Rules for Admission to the Bar of Arizona, Rules of the Supreme Court


Mary O'Grady
Solicitor General
1275 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-542-8986
602-542-8308
[email protected]
011434

R-06-0017 Revision of the Rules for Admission to the Bar of Arizona, Rules of the Supreme Court

Richard F. Haitbrink
38065 N. Cave Creek Rd., #40
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
(913) 226-8485
[email protected]

I support the Petition to revise the rules for admission by motion with reciprocity for all of the reasons set forth in Mr. Burr's petition. In addition, without burdening the reader with a rehash of thoughts already presented, I add my support particularly to the comments submitted by Mr. Fisher, Mr. Dorny, Ms. Gotkin, Ms. Wittenberg and Ms. Johansen. I am licensed in the states of Kansas and Missouri and have practiced law in a competent and ethical manner for over 30 years. Ten years ago I moved to Arizona because of my wife's health. In order to make a living I have continued to commute back and forth to Kansas City to maintain my practice which is in a very narrow area. My main client would like me to also represent them in their matters in Arizona because of my special expertise. But I am unable to do so without taking the bar exam which I have not been able to do because of the large time commitment
required. I feel very competent to practice in Arizona expecially with the review course which would be required. In this day and age, the need to be able to practice multijurisdictionally is becoming even more important, and I feel it is only a matter of time until even the Western states change their reciprocity rules.

I strongly support Mr. Burr's petition.

R-06-0017 Revision of the Rules for Admission to the Bar of Arizona, Rules of the Supreme Court

Roger W. Archer
P.O. Box 65882
Tucson, AZ 85728
SBA #004311

Please read comments attached hereto.

R-06-0017 Revision of the Rules for Admission to the Bar of Arizona, Rules of the Supreme Court

William g. Klain (#015851)
Kent A. Lang (#010041)
LANG & BAKER, PLC
8767 E. Via de Commercio
Suite 102
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Telephone (480) 947-1911
Facsimile (480) 970-5034
[email protected]
[email protected]


We oppose the Petition for those reasons set forth in, and hereby join in, the Comment in Opposition to Petition submitted by John Bouma, Daniel McAuliffe and Andrew Halaby on May 11, 2007.

R-06-0017 Revision of the Rules for Admission to the Bar of Arizona, Rules of the Supreme Court

Tomas W. King, MD
445 N 5th Street, Suite 300N
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 441-2000
(602) 441-2034 (fax)


I support the petition for the reasons set forth in Mr. Burr's Petition, the Report of the Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice of the American Bar Association, and the Report and Final Recommendations to the Board of Governors of the Arizona Multijurisdictional Task Force.

For the benefit of the population of Arizona, the protectionist mentality of the State Bar of Arizona must end and Arizona must join the significant majority of other states in moving forward to acknowledge the modern practice of law.

The population of Arizona is woefully underserved compared to the rest of the country. As one can plainly see be examining the 2006 population per resident attorney statistics (attached hereto provided by the United States Census and the American Bar Association).

Arizona ranks SECOND TO LAST in terms of available attorneys (506.6 population per attorney) and nearly two times below the national average (268.05 population per attorney). Arizona would need to double the number of resident attorneys merely to meet the national average.

Clearly, there is a driving need for an increase in the number of lawyers, the public is demanding more lawyers in the state, and this lawyer gap results in segments of the population that are currently under-served. Further, this lack of availability to legal services must affect nearly every sector of the economy. The aforementioned statistics clearly illuminate that the system in place in Arizona is clearly broken and must be repaired.

I understand that a shortage of attorneys in the state significantly maintains the income of in-state attorneys at a high level. This statement merely follows economic laws of supply and demand and is a concept certainly not new to any of us. Although income is important for all people in the state, this should not be the only motivating factor for keeping the population of Arizona attorneys low, relative to the population increase. A similar point to be made in the state of Arizona pertains to the medical profession. I would like to point out similar population and ratio statistics for the medical profession in the US and Arizona in particular (see below). As you can see, Arizona is also underserved with regards to the medical profession. One of the points to be made for establishing the medical school in Phoenix is the fact that a high proportion of medical students tend to stay in the cities where they train. This fact has been shown with the experience and statistics of medical schools throughout the country, especially in the older established institutions on the East coast. This mentality of preparing for the future of Arizona and its needs, specifically pertaining to the needs of potential patients, is something that must be encouraged as a prospective approach to a looming problem as opposed to the reactionary approach. The latter usually resulting in rushed planning and also indicates a lack of foresight.

Any reduction in the barrier to entry which would encourage migration to Arizona of competent experienced attorneys would provide the population of Arizona with increased opportunities and choices for legal services and a corresponding reduction in rates.

Most of the states in the southwest have adopted (Texas, Colorado and
Utah) or are in the process of considering adopting (California and New
Mexico) such provisions. Nevada appears to be the only one of our neighbors currently not moving towards admission on motion. Why must Arizona be the last state in the southwest, the union even, to adopt provisions which would benefit Arizona residents?

In addition, opponents to admission on motion argue that the State Bar exam is the only uniform, objective test of a lawyer's knowledge of Arizona's substantive and procedural law. This argument presupposes that the Arizona bar exam is somehow significantly distinct from the bar exams of other states. However, the bar exam is virtually the same in all states and if an attorney passed it once and can demonstrate their professional competence, it seems appropriate that they should not have to take the bar exam again, as the core laws and procedures of most states are substantially similar. Further, the practice of law (much like the practice of medicine) is not static and changes at a rapid pace. What was once tested ten or twenty years ago may be obsolete. Historical passage of the Arizona bar exam is no guaranty of competence of today's laws. If the State Bar of Arizona and this court actually believe that the Arizona bar exam is the only test of competence then why is it not administered annually to all lawyers to protect the public? Since it is not, clearly then, this must not be the case.

Arizona lawyers and their regulation must evolve and keep pace or risk being left behind. Competent lawyers (and doctors, accountants, engineers and other professionals) must always be learning through organized continuing education course and self-study in order to maintain their current knowledge. This area is where the State Bar of Arizona and this court should direct their effort, not some romantic view of the bar exam which somehow values a new attorney who just passed the bar exam with zero years of experience over a twenty year practitioner from another state with a clear record of competence.

Finally, I can only imagine the difficulty that Arizona law firms must have in attracting and recruiting experienced attorneys. I cannot begin to convey how difficult it would be for me to recruit doctors from another state if one of the requirements was that they retake the medical boards. Especially if such experienced doctors were able to move to other states without such a barrier.

On behalf of the non-lawyer citizens of Arizona I urge the court to adopt admission on motion.




- 800,000 practicing MD's in US
- 11,000 practicing MD's in AZ
- 10,000 practicing MD's who see patients in AZ
- 119 active, licensed dermatologists in Maricopa County (2004)
- 1 dermatologist/30,000 in Maricopa County (2004)
- 36 active, licensed dermatologists in Phoenix
- 32 active, licensed dermatologists in Scottsdale
- 238 MD's/100,000 in US (1990)
- 283 MD's/100,000 in US (2004)
- 197 MD's/100,000 in AZ (1990)
- 207 MD's/100,000 in AZ (2004)
- 48 MD's/100,000 in Apache County (2004)
- 222 MD's/100,000 in Maricopa County (2004)
- 277 MD's/100,000 in Pima County (2004)
- 125 medical schools in US
Source:AZ Republic, July 24, 2005.

R-06-0017 Revision Of The Rules For Admission To The Bar Of Arizona

Robert B. Van Wyck
Chief Bar Counsel
#7800
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N 24th Street
Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85061-6288
(602) 340-7241