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 SACrtDocs@courts.az.gov.

News:  We have corrected an error that prevented users from accessing some current criminal rules via Westlaw.
Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

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 01 May 2019 02:34 PM by  Katherine Novak
R-18-0024 Rule 64(f)(1)(B), Ariz.R.S.Ct.
 1 Replies
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Ralph Adams
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

29 Jan 2018 03:19 PM
    Ralph Adams, 015599
    520 East Portland Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    (602) 258-3542

    Would clarify the language of Rule 64(f)(1)(B), Ariz.R.S.Ct. and eliminate reference to Bar Counsel rendering findings re the need to show rehabilitation.

    Applicants for reinstatement who have been suspended from the practice of law for more than six months for disciplinary reasons must demonstrate fitness, competence and rehabilitation. A hearing is required under these circumstances. Hearings are also required for attorneys who have been summarily suspended by the Board of Governors for more than two years for failure to pay dues or maintain MCLE. However, attorneys who are summarily suspended have not generally demonstrated any issue, trait or condition from which to be"rehabilitated." Recognizing this fact, the rule was amended on January 1, 2017 to eliminate the need to demonstrate rehabilitation in such cases.

    The current rule as amended is, however, problematic in that it suggests that Bar Counsel have authority to make “findings” requiring an applicant to demonstrate rehabilitation in such a case. The Rules of the Supreme Court do not convey upon Bar Counsel the authority to make findings. Moreover, such findings would violate applicants' due process rights. In addition, applicants must demonstrate "fitness" so there is no need for Bar Counsel to make such findings regarding rehabilitation.

    This Petition seeks to clarify the language of the rule and eliminate the reference to Bar Counsel rendering findings regarding an applicant's need to demonstrate rehabilitation.

    FILED 01-29-2018

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2019.

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2019.
    Katherine Novak
    New Member
    Posts:14 New Member

    01 May 2019 02:34 PM
    Hon. Ann A. Scott Timmer, Chair
    Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee
    Arizona Supreme Court
    1501 W. Washington St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85007

    Please see the attached comment of the Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee.
    Topic is locked