FAQ

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.




Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules
                


Welcome!

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. 

PLEASE READ - CONTACT INFORMATION: 

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU SUBMIT ALL 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 30 May 2019 11:00 AM by  Timothy Sandefur
R-19-0005 Petition to Amend Rules 32(c) and (d), Rules of the Supreme Court
 13 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Timothy Sandefur
New Member
Posts:4 New Member

--
09 Jan 2019 09:27 AM
    Timothy Sandefur (Bar No. 033670), Goldwater Institute, 500 E. Coronado Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85004, (602) 462-5000, litigation@goldwaterinstitute.org

    Would amend Rules 32(c) and (d), Rules of the Supreme Court, to make voluntary some aspects of bar membership and to provide for audit to verify the use of mandatory dues

    Filed: January 9, 2019

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

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2019.
    Attachments
    Ursula
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    11 Feb 2019 12:40 PM
    Ursula Johnston
    2265 E. LaCosta Place
    Chandler, AZ 85249
    480-993-3921
    interiorsbyursula@cox.net

    As a law-abiding citizen who has lived in Maricopa County since 2004, I support this petition. I recently went through a divorce that should have been simple (no children, no alimony), yet the case was dragged through the courts for years and resulted in over 250 filings that I took to the Supreme Court. As I went through this ordeal, I connected the dots on some things that point to systemic weaknesses with the way attorneys and judges are hired, treated and trained in our county. Some of the problem ties to the way the AZ Bar Association is structured. This petition will help to strengthen the oversight of quality attorneys in our community. It will also be a step in the right direction to better inform and protect the public from unscrupulous attorneys. I can be reached for comment or clarification at 480-993-3921 or interiorsbyursula@cox.net
    State Bar of Arizona
    New Member
    Posts:88 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2019 04:19 PM
    Comment of the State Bar of Arizona

    Lisa M. Panahi, Bar No. 023421
    General Counsel, State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    602-340-7236
    patricia.seguin@staff.azbar.org
    Attachments
    Mo
    New Member
    Posts:8 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2019 05:58 PM
    Mauricio R. Hernandez (#020181)
    mo@lawmrh.com
    P.O. Box 7347
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    Telephone: (623) 363-2649
    Attachments
    Kevin Heade
    New Member
    Posts:3 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2019 12:56 PM
    I support this Petition for the reasons articulated by Maurice Hernandez on April 29, 2019.
    Additionally, I support the Petition because smaller alternative bar associations would benefit from a bifurcated State Bar. If attorneys were not compelled to pay mandatory bar dues to cover non-essential regulatory functions, they would have more money to join alternative bar associations which more align with their interests and political ideology

    -Kevin Heade
    AZ State Bar # 029909
    620 W Jackson St Ste 4015
    Phoenix, AZ, 85003-0638
    Andrea Angulo Gutierrez
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 07:16 AM
    I support this Petition for Rule Change. I concur with my Colleague Mauricio Hernandez' Response. I also would like to add that I wish to have the Bar no longer integrated as I believe the Bar is not serving our community well. I do not believe the Bar speaks for everyone who is licensed. Additionally, I do not appreciate the fact that the Bar is able to keep their books private. I, as a forced member, ought to be able to see the Bar's income and expenses for myself. I am not able to do this. My dues are out of control. They are NOT affordable. Change needs to happen. The Bar needs to be bifurcated!

    Andrea Angulo Gutierrez
    Owner, The Angulo Law Firm, PLLC
    PO Box 8025
    Chandler, AZ 85246-8025
    602-820-5173
    theangulolawfirm.com
    George A. Schade, Jr.
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 07:33 AM
    I support the Petition to Amend Rules 32(c) and (d). I have read the comments submitted by Mauricio R. Hernandez and agree with them. The State Bar has to focus on the functions that will best serve the legal profession and become more cost effective and transparent. The First Amendment right of attorneys must be safeguarded. Dues have been steadily rising to the point that all of us must consider valid, beneficial, and practical ways to improve the situation. Fear of change must not dominate the issues raised by the petition.

    I further suggest that this website be made more user friendly.

    George A. Schade, Jr.
    5701 E Wilshire Dr
    Scottsdale, AZ 85257-1951
    Arizona State Bar No. 003289
    NE Suriel
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 07:57 AM
    Subject: RE: R-19-0005 Petition to Amend Rules 32(c) and (d), Rules of the Supreme Court

    I support this Petition for the reasons articulated by Mauricio Hernandez on April 29, 2019.

    Nic Suriel
    AZ State Bar # 016317
    1430 E Indian School Rd., suite 200
    Phoenix, AZ, 85014
    Richard W. Morris
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 10:00 AM
    I support this Petition for Rule Change. I concur with the responses of my colleague Mauricio Hernandez and the others who have responded in the support of this change. The Bar should be the champion of freedom and individual liberty, not champion itself at the expense of both lawyers and the public.

    Richard W. Morris
    13951 West Grand Avenue #203
    Surprise, AZ, 85374-2436
    623-583-1040

    Tim Holt
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 10:42 AM
    I support this Petition for the reasons articulated by Maurice Hernandez on April 29, 2019.
    Additionally, I support the Petition because smaller alternative bar associations would benefit from a bifurcated State Bar. If attorneys were not compelled to pay mandatory bar dues to cover non-essential regulatory functions, they would have more money to join alternative bar associations which more align with their interests and political ideology

    Timothy W. Holt
    SBN 009724
    6751 N. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 320
    Glendale, Az 85305
    623-334-6800
    tim@holttrust.com
    James C. Mitchell
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 10:51 AM
    James C. Mitchell
    State Bar No. 017387
    1098 W. Shoal Creek Lane
    Oro Valley, AZ 85737
    520-907-2478
    mitchell@email.arizona.edu

    I support this Petition for the reasons stated therein and in the comment by Mauricio R. Hernandez.

    Individual lawyers need a more independent organization than exists today to voice their concerns in regulatory matters. This is not possible with the current integrated bar. The State Bar is a creature of the Arizona Supreme Court. It understandably acts in concert with the Court on regulation. Like all co-dependency, this relationship can have harmful consequences.

    For example, if lawyers had a strong independent voice in 1989, we might have been spared the costly, useless mandate for so-called continuing legal education. With the benefit of advocacy from a voluntary bar component, the Arizona Supreme Court might have better understood that MCLE had no proven success in the states where it was imposed since 1974. This remarkable record of failure has been maintained ever since. So has the mandatory bar’s hollow defense of it.

    Recent scholarly research and commentary indicate that most MCLE contributes nothing to attorney professionalism or public protection. Nevertheless, State Bar members have been compelled to waste tens of millions of dollars and countless hours on this boondoggle. Individual members’ prayers for reform are ignored. A voluntary bar component might have sufficient influence to help stop the bleeding. If it chooses not to inform the Court of member views and actual evidence on regulatory issues, then like-minded colleagues and I could choose to withhold our support.

    Principled regulation of our profession deserves broad support. To that end, we must avoid conflicts in which an institution’s authority to require membership encourages it to act or speak in ways contrary to members’ interests. The Petition’s proposals mitigate that problem while leaving in place a vital system of regulation and public protection directed by the Arizona Supreme Court. I respectfully urge the Court to adopt the Petition.
    Linda Marie Brown
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 01:21 PM
    I support this petition. While I respect all of what the State Bar of Arizona ("SBA") has to offer its members, I find that a bifurcated structure will allow practitioners freedom to decide whether they wish to participate in various activities that are coordinated by the SBA.

    The SBA purports its mission as follows: "Mission Statement. The State Bar of Arizona exists to serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice. Consistent with these goals, the State Bar of Arizona seeks to improve the administration of justice and the competency, ethics, and professionalism of lawyers practicing in Arizona."

    In further support of the petition, I believe that under the current structure it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest, specifically, the rooster minding the henhouse wherein the SBA is charged with attorney discipline, protecting the public and yet advocating for attorneys.



    Linda Marie Brown
    SBN 025382

    15333 N Pima Rd Ste 305
    Scottsdale AZ 85260

    Email: linda.brown@lmbrownlaw.com
    Gregory Falls
    New Member
    Posts:3 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 02:17 PM
    Gregory W. Falls
    Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.
    201 East Washington Street, Suite 800
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    (602) 240-3000
    Fax: (602) 240-6600
    gfalls@shermanhoward.com
    011206
    Attachments
    Timothy Sandefur
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    30 May 2019 11:00 AM
    Timothy Sandefur (Bar No. 033670), Goldwater Institute, 500 E. Coronado Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85004, (602) 462-5000, litigation@goldwaterinstitute.org
    Attachments
    Topic is locked