Continued Rule Petitions



Criminal Rule 32.2(b)

The proposed change would amend Rule 32.2(b) and provide that the doctrine of preclusion in Rule 32.2(a) would not apply when the basis for post-conviction relief is the court's lack of jurisdiction to render judgment or impose sentence.


Supreme Court
Rule 42,
ER 1.15 (comment)

If a dispute arises between a client and a third party over the third-party’s interest in property that is in the lawyer’s possession, such as a third-party who has a lien claim against personal injury proceeds that are held by counsel, this proposed change would shift the burden to the third-party to take action to protect its interest.

With the concurrence of the Petitioners, the Court has continued this matter to the 2013 rules cycle to allow the State Bar of Arizona to establish a task force to consider this problem.

This matter will be subject to the deadlines for the 2013 rules cycle, with the new comment period ending on May 20, 2013.


Supreme Court
Rule 42, ER 3.8

This petition requests that the Court incorporate ABA Model Rule 3.8(g) into Arizona’s Code of Professional Responsibility. The amendment would establish new ethical duties for prosecutors in situations where they become aware, after conviction, of evidence clearly indicating that an innocent person may have been wrongfully convicted.

The Court continued this petition and reopened it for comments on staff draft.  Comments are due May 20, 2013.  The Court has requested comments on five ethical questions.


Supreme Court
Rule 42, ER 8.4 (comment)
ER 8.4(d) currently provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.  The proposed amendment, among other things, would make the comment to the rule more inclusive by eliminating special classes of protected persons who, by their specific inclusion, appear to exclude other equally deserving persons from protection.

The Court continued this petition for consideration in conjunction with any proposal from a task force that the State Bar might establish to study and to make recommendations on this matter.


Supreme Court
Rule 123
The petition requests that probate records be available to the public by remote electronic access; and that a member of the public not be required to have a valid Arizona driver’s license or non-operator identification to obtain remote access to electronic records.


ARPOP Rule 1(M)
This rule amendment would require a court that has issued a protective order, after the court has received proof of service of the protective order on defendant, to mail a copy of the proof of service to the plaintiff.



ARPOP Rule 6(E)(4)(e)(2)
The petition sought the repeal of a rule that allows a judge to inquire regarding a defendant’s access to firearms in an Injunction Against Harassment Proceeding, and to prohibit the defendant from possessing firearms for the duration of the Injunction Against Harassment.

The Court has opened a draft amendment for comment.  Comments are due by May 20, 2013.