Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg (19338)
Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg, P.C.
11771 Sunset Ave NE
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
(480) 540-1341
[email protected]

The Court should deny the Petition. If the Court wishes to consider incremental reform, it should adopt narrower, risk-calibrated adjustments (outlined below) that preserve public protection and the integrity of Arizona licensure while addressing discrete, demonstrated barriers.

I. The Petition does not show that its sweeping changes will actually improve access to justice

1. “More licenses” ≠ “more service where the need is.”

Even if Arizona has fewer lawyers per capita, the Petition does not demonstrate that removing core admission criteria will result in meaningful increases in (a) rural coverage, (b) low- and moderate-income representation, or (c) availability in high-need practice areas like housing, family law, and consumer matters. Lawyer supply tends to concentrate in metro areas and higher-margin practice areas. Without targeted mechanisms, the rule change risks primarily expanding competition in already-served markets rather than reducing the justice gap.

2. Access problems often turn on affordability and scope, not licensure frictions alone.

Arizona has already pursued major access reforms (e.g., paraprofessional pathways, alternative business structures). The Petition does not show that admission-on-motion reciprocity and recent-practice requirements are a leading driver of unmet legal needs compared to affordability, legal aid resources, and case-type complexity.

Because the benefits are speculative and the costs (public protection risks) are concrete, the Court should not adopt categorical deregulatory changes without stronger evidence and narrower tailoring.

II. Eliminating reciprocity is a one-way ratchet that burdens Arizona lawyers and serves no demonstrated Arizona interest

1. Reciprocity is not “retaliatory;” it is symmetry.

Reciprocity ensures Arizona lawyers are not disadvantaged relative to out-of-state lawyers. Removing it invites a structural imbalance: Arizona becomes a “net importer” jurisdiction while Arizona lawyers remain blocked elsewhere. Whatever one thinks of other states’ policies, Arizona’s rules should not unilaterally surrender bargaining leverage that benefits Arizona-licensed attorneys.

2. The Petition attacks a rationale it doesn’t replace.

The Petition characterizes reciprocity as unrelated to competence. Even if that were true, the Court may reasonably maintain reciprocity as a policy choice balancing mobility and fairness to Arizona admittees. The Petition offers no substitute mechanism ensuring Arizona lawyers are treated comparably nationwide.

3. If the concern is specific non-reciprocal states, address that specifically.

A blanket elimination is unnecessary. If Arizona wants to expand admission on motion, it can do so through carefully designed exceptions (e.g., for UBE jurisdictions, for government lawyers relocating, for military spouses, for rural practice commitments) without scrapping reciprocity wholesale.

An alternative would be to keep reciprocity, but (a) expand the list of “equivalent” jurisdictions based on objective criteria (UBE score transferability, disciplinary transparency, CLE equivalence), and/or (b) create targeted waivers for underserved-area or public-interest practice.

III. Eliminating the active-practice requirement invites competency and currency problems; the Petition’s proposed “fixes” are inadequate

1. The Court is entitled to require “currency” in competence.

Law changes. Procedure changes. Evidence rules evolve. Technology and e-discovery norms evolve. An admission-on-motion pathway, by definition, substitutes for an Arizona bar exam; the Court may reasonably require recent, meaningful practice as a proxy for baseline competence and professional judgment.

2. The Petition’s fairness narratives do not justify eliminating the screen.

The Petition cites parents, caregivers, part-time lawyers, and retirees. Those are sympathetic categories—but a currency requirement can be refined without being abolished. For example, the Court can broaden what counts as “active practice” and extend the look-back window, while still requiring some minimum recent engagement.

3. The Petition’s “just do more CLE” suggestion is not equivalent.

CLE is important but does not substitute for actual practice currency, supervised experience, or a competency exam. CLE completion is also difficult to police for depth and quality. Using CLE alone as the gatekeeper meaningfully reduces public-protection assurances.

A possible alternative is to either (a) retain an active-practice requirement, but modify it: e.g., 2 of the last 6–7 years, with an expanded definition that clearly includes part-time practice, judicial clerkship, government service, and supervised pro bono/clinic work, or (b) add a “return-to-practice” track for those out of practice for X years: extra CLE + a supervised practice period + malpractice coverage proof.

IV. The foreign-educated “equivalency” provision improperly delegates Arizona’s gatekeeping to other states and increases inconsistency

1. Arizona should not outsource “substantial equivalency” determinations.

Different jurisdictions evaluate foreign legal education differently. Some rely heavily on transcript review; others require LL.M. coursework; others use differing accreditation or experiential criteria. The Petition’s approach would cause unequal treatment and effectively makes Arizona’s admission criteria hinge on the most permissive state’s standards.

2. The proposed language is vague and hard to administer.

The Petition references education “deemed substantially equivalent” by “the state or states” from which the applicant has authorization. That invites disputes: Which state’s determination controls if they differ? What documentation is required? What if the prior determination was decades old or under superseded standards?

If the Court wishes to broaden eligibility for already-licensed foreign-educated attorneys, do it through an Arizona-controlled process: require credential evaluation by a designated body and/or specify clear minimum requirements (LL.M. from ABA-approved school + practice years + discipline history), not deference to another jurisdiction’s label.

V. Allowing conditional practice while character & fitness is pending is the most concerning proposal and should be rejected outright

1. Character & fitness review is not a formality.

The Petition would permit practice before Arizona has completed its independent review. That flips the sequence: the state’s gatekeeping occurs after the lawyer is already representing Arizona clients. If a problem is later identified, the harm may already be done.

2. Other jurisdictions’ “good standing” is not enough.

“Good standing” does not necessarily mean “no unresolved concerns,” and it may not capture pending investigations, patterns of client complaints, trust-account issues that did not become formal discipline, or other red flags that Arizona’s process might surface.

3. Even “conditional” practice creates real risks and remedial difficulty.

Once an attorney appears in cases, signs pleadings, receives client funds, and negotiates settlements, unwinding those actions after an adverse fitness finding can be chaotic and unfair to clients, opposing parties, and courts.

If the concern is delay, the solution is process speed, not permitting practice first. Options include expedited review for applicants with clean disciplinary histories, prioritized processing for relocating government attorneys, or temporary non-client-facing permissions (e.g., research/writing under supervision) that do not involve independent representation.

VI. If the Court wants reform, adopt narrower, evidence-based steps instead

Here, for example, is a package that materially improves mobility while preserving public protection:

1. Targeted reciprocity waiver: for (a) military spouses, (b) Arizona residents relocating back, (c) full-time government/public defender/legal aid roles, and/or (d) attorneys committing to practice in designated underserved counties for a minimum term.

2. Modernized “active practice” definition + adjusted window: include part-time, contract, remote practice, judicial clerkships, and supervised pro bono; change to 2 of last 6–7 or 3 of last 10.

3. Return-to-practice track: for those out of practice >5 years—require extra AZ-specific CLE, supervised practice, and proof of malpractice coverage.

4. Arizona-controlled foreign-education pathway: specify objective minimum criteria rather than importing other states’ “equivalency” labels.

5. Expedited character & fitness: triage clean-record applicants; set performance targets; improve staffing/resources—without authorizing pre-clearance practice.

Conclusion

The Petition’s proposals are not narrowly tailored to the access problems asserted and would reduce protections that serve Arizona clients, courts, and the legal system. The Court should deny the Petition and, if it desires modernization, pursue narrower reforms that preserve reciprocity balance, maintain a meaningful practice-currency screen, keep Arizona control over educational equivalency, and reject conditional practice prior to completion of character and fitness review.

Mark D. Samson, AZ Bar Number 11076,
3101 N. Central, Suite 1400, Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-230-6323.

I am currently of counsel to Keller Rohrback, LLP (where I was a partner in it and its predecessor firms here in Arizona for 35 years, all here in Phoenix). I have read Geoff Trachtenberg's comments on this Petition. As a 40-year AZ practitioner, in good standing (with no bar complaints or other indicia of other than faithful compliance with the ethical rules of practice), I endorse and adopt Mr. Trachtenberg's submission and analysis of the non-necessity of the proposed rule changes and believe that they are unwarranted and more likely harmful than helpful to the needs of Arizonans for the reasons he sets forth.

Eric S. Shapiro (Az Bar No. 018915)
Shapiro Injury Law
722 E. Osborn Road, Suite 120
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
(602) 274-7400
[email protected]

The Court should deny the Petition as it proposes sweeping deregulatory changes without demonstrating that they would meaningfully improve access to justice, while posing real risks to public protection and Arizona’s licensing system.

First, there is no evidence to support the position that loosening admission standards will increase legal services where they are most needed. Simply increasing the number of licensed attorneys does not necessarily equate to an increase in rural, low-income, or high-need representation.

Second, eliminating reciprocity disadvantages Arizona lawyers by creating a one-way system that benefits out-of-state attorneys while limiting Arizona attorneys’ mobility.

Third, removing the active-practice requirement undermines competence safeguards. Legal practice evolves, and recent practice reasonably serves as a proxy for currency and professional judgment. The Petition’s reliance on CLE alone is inadequate.

Fourth, the proposed foreign-education equivalency provision improperly delegates Arizona’s gatekeeping authority to other states and introduces inconsistency and administrative uncertainty. Any expansion should be handled through Arizona-controlled, objective standards.

Fifth, allowing attorneys to practice while character and fitness review is pending poses the most serious risk. Character and fitness review is not a formality, and permitting practice before completion is likely to lead to irreversible harm to Arizona residents.

Finally, the Court can pursue meaningful reform through narrower steps.
Overall, the Petition is not narrowly tailored to the access problems it claims to address and weakens protections for Arizona’s residents. The Court should deny it and consider more limited reforms instead.

Eduardo R. Parra, AZ Bar Number 036633
2390 E Camelback Rd. Suite 403, Phoenix, AZ 85016
602-912-4253

I endorse and adopt Mr. Geoff Trachtenberg's comments on this Petition. This Petition will only serve to harm our current community of legal advocates. The Petition asks the Court to make sweeping admission changes based on largely speculative access-to-justice benefits, without showing that loosening core safeguards will meaningfully increase service in rural areas, for low- and moderate-income clients, or in high-need practice areas. Several proposals would also create concrete public-protection risks, particularly eliminating reciprocity (to Arizona lawyers’ detriment), removing a meaningful recent-practice “currency” screen, outsourcing foreign-education equivalency to other states, and allowing practice before completion of Arizona’s character-and-fitness review. The Court should deny the Petition.

Scott I. Palumbo (021271)
THE PALUMBO LAW FIRM
5500 N. 24th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-584-2959
[email protected]


I have been actively practicing law in Arizona for the past 25 years. I have read Mr. Trachtenberg’s submission and fully adopt his comments and urge the rejection of this rule change. The rule change will not materially impact the problem to which it purports to address, i.e., access to justice. Much like the failed ABS program, these changes will do nothing other than to encourage interests from outside Arizona to further flood already saturated legal markets that are not suffering from any access to justice problems.
 

Jack V. Brooks, AZ Bar Number 036196
J. Brooks Law, LLC
8416 N 194th Dr, Waddell, AZ 85355
623-226-8020
[email protected]

The court should deny this petition. I am also in agreement with Geoff Trachtenberg's comments on this Petition. I, too, endorse and adopt Mr. Trachtenberg's submission and analysis of the non-necessity of the proposed rule changes. There is no sufficient analysis or evidence to show that the proposals offered in this position will address the alleged deficiencies in the current legal landscape in Arizona. New York and California attorneys are not going to flock to rural areas of Arizona. A also agree with Mark Samson's comment that these proposals are more likely harmful than helpful to the needs of Arizonans for the reasons Mr. Trachtenberg set forth. The Court should deny this petition.

Alexander R. Hartman (37787)
Pfarr & Rethore PC
5070 N 40th St. Ste 230
Phoenix, AZ 85018
602-424-5547

I am a licensed Arizona attorney admitted in 2022, currently practicing trust and estate law in Phoenix. I write to express my strong support for Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg's response and to oppose the Petition. I wish only to add the perspective of a young attorney on the particular risks to the public and young attorneys on the elimination of the active practice requirement.

Eliminating the active practice requirement creates a credential arbitrage problem that harms the public. An attorney who practiced from 1995 to 2010 and has been out of practice for fifteen years can truthfully market "fifteen years of legal experience," while an attorney admitted in 2023 has only "three years of experience." Clients, particularly unsophisticated consumers, cannot readily distinguish between substantial but stale credentials and recent, current practice. This information asymmetry leads clients to select attorneys whose knowledge may be fifteen years out of date over attorneys with current competency, resulting in potentially outdated advice, and increased malpractice risk. CLE is simply insufficient to close the gap of active work experience. The active practice requirement solves this problem by ensuring that credentials reflect relatively recent engagement with the law as actually practiced, allowing clients to make informed comparisons. Without it, clients bear the risk of distinguishing between current and outdated expertise, a task they are ill-equipped to perform. This kind of credentialing arbitrage would increase risks to the public while disadvantaging young and high-currency attorneys who must now compete with experienced but rusty attorneys to build their practices.

If the Court desires modernization, I endorse Mr. Trachtenberg's targeted alternatives: reciprocity waivers for specific categories, a modernized active practice definition with adjusted windows, a return-to-practice track with additional requirements, Arizona-controlled foreign education criteria, and expedited character and fitness processing without pre-clearance practice.

Joseph DAguanno (020421)
Gage Mathers Law Group, PLLC
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle, Suite A-114
Phoenix, AZ 85016
(602) 258-0646
[email protected]

COMMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR RULE CHANGE

The Petition asks this Court to substantially revise Arizona’s admission-on-motion rules based on the premise that doing so will improve access to justice. The Petition does not make that showing. Instead, the Petition guarantees outcome failure and misalignment.

While the goal of expanding access to legal services is important and shared, the Petition relies on an assumption—rather than evidence—that easing licensure requirements will result in more lawyers serving underserved Arizonans. It does not demonstrate that its proposed changes will increase representation in rural communities, improve access for low- and moderate-income residents, or expand availability in high-need practice areas. Indeed, we’ve seen the contrary with the introduction of ABSs.

Because the Petition’s proposals are broad, untargeted, and reduce important public-protection safeguards without a demonstrated access benefit, the Court should deny the Petition. If the Court determines that reform is warranted, it should pursue narrower, evidence-based adjustments that directly address documented access gaps while preserving the integrity of Arizona licensure.

I. The Petition Does Not Establish a Connection Between Its Proposals and Improved Access to Justice

The Petition’s central claim is that Arizona has too few lawyers and that expanding admission on motion will improve access to justice. That claim depends on a causal link that the Petition does not establish. Arizona’s most significant unmet legal needs are concentrated in:
• Rural and frontier counties;
• Low- and moderate-income populations; and
• Practice areas such as housing, family law, consumer protection, and public benefits.

The Petition does not explain how eliminating reciprocity or recent-practice requirements will increase legal services in those settings. Lawyer supply has long tended to concentrate in metropolitan areas and higher-margin practice areas. Without mechanisms directing lawyers to underserved communities or high-need practice areas, additional admissions are unlikely to change that pattern.

II. The Petition Does Not Identify Licensure Rules as a Primary Driver of Access Barriers

Arizona has already pursued reforms specifically designed to improve access to justice, including licensed paraprofessional pathways and alternative business structures. Those reforms address affordability and service delivery—factors widely recognized as primary drivers of unmet legal need. The Petition does not demonstrate that reciprocity requirements or recent-practice standards meaningfully contribute to access barriers when compared to:
• The inability of many Arizonans to afford legal representation;
• Limited funding and capacity for legal aid organizations;
• The complexity and low economic margins of certain high-need practice areas; or
• Geographic isolation in rural regions.

Absent such a showing, the Court lacks a basis to conclude that eliminating these licensure requirements will materially improve access to justice.

III. Eliminating Reciprocity Is Untethered to the Petition’s Stated Access Goals

The Petition proposes eliminating reciprocity as a condition of admission on motion. Even assuming that change would increase lawyer mobility into Arizona, the Petition does not show that it would increase representation in underserved communities.

Reciprocity governs interstate balance in lawyer admission. It does not determine where lawyers choose to practice or whom they serve. Eliminating reciprocity:
• Does not incentivize rural or public-interest practice;
• Does not address affordability; and
• Does not target high-need practice areas.

If the Court’s objective is to improve access to justice—not merely increase lateral mobility—eliminating reciprocity is neither necessary nor shown to be effective.

IV. Eliminating Practice-Currency Requirements Reduces Safeguards Without Advancing Access

Recent practice requirements serve as a reasonable proxy for current professional competence in an admission-on-motion framework that substitutes for examination. The Petition seeks to eliminate this screen without demonstrating that doing so will improve access to legal services.

The Petition does not show that attorneys who have been out of practice are more likely to serve rural communities or low-income clients. Nor does it explain why eliminating practice-currency requirements would meaningfully address unmet legal needs.

To the extent the Petition raises concerns about fairness to certain categories of applicants, those concerns can be addressed through refinement rather than elimination—such as broader definitions of qualifying practice, extended look-back periods, or structured return-to-practice pathways. Absent such tailoring, the proposed change sacrifices a public-protection measure without a demonstrated access benefit.

V. Several Proposals Increase Regulatory Risk Without Improving Access

The Petition also includes proposals that expand regulatory risk without advancing its stated goal, including:
• Deferring to other jurisdictions’ determinations of foreign-education equivalency; and
• Permitting practice before completion of Arizona’s character and fitness review.

These proposals do not target underserved populations or high-need practice areas, nor do they address affordability. Allowing practice before completion of character and fitness review, in particular, reverses the Court’s gatekeeping function by permitting client representation before Arizona has completed its independent evaluation. If delays are a concern, the appropriate response is improved processing efficiency—not pre-clearance practice.

VI. Targeted, Evidence-Based Alternatives Are Available

If the Court wishes to pursue reform in furtherance of access to justice, more focused approaches are available, including:
• Admission pathways tied to service commitments in designated underserved counties;
• Streamlined admission for full-time government, public defender, or legal-aid positions;
• Refined practice-currency standards rather than wholesale elimination;
• Structured return-to-practice pathways with appropriate safeguards; and
• Improved efficiency in character and fitness review.

Such measures align licensure flexibility with demonstrable public benefit. The Petition’s proposals do not.

Conclusion

The Petition asks the Court to reduce longstanding licensure safeguards on the assumption that broader eligibility will improve access to justice. The Petition does not establish that link. It does not demonstrate that its proposals will place more lawyers in underserved communities, increase representation for low- and moderate-income Arizonans, or expand service in high-need practice areas.

For these reasons, the Court should deny the Petition. If reform is warranted, it should proceed through narrower, evidence-based adjustments that directly address documented access gaps while preserving the integrity of Arizona licensure and the Court’s essential gatekeeping role.

John A. Micheaels
Bar Number 005917
Beale, Micheaels, Slack & Shughart
7012 North 18th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85020
(602) 363-3870
[email protected]

I have practiced in Arizona for 46 years plus. I join in the comments of Geoff Trachtenberg and Mark Samson. This proposal should be rejected.
This proposal- like the ABS rule change several years ago- is not going to raise the bar in AZ (ie the quality of practice) and is not going to increase access to justice for those AZ citizens/consumers who cannot afford legal services. Rather- like the ABS rule change- this rule change will only make it easier for unqualified non-Arizonans (both lawyers and non lawyers) to make a quick profit without having a presence here in AZ and without contributing anything to our Bar and AZ citizens.

Shane L. Harward (016532)
Law Offices of Shane L. Harward, P.L.C.
9375 E. Shea Blvd.
Suite 100
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
(480) 874-2918
[email protected]

The Court should again deny the Petition. The proposed amendments pose substantial risks to the integrity of the legal profession, the protection of Arizona residents, and the quality of legal services delivered within the state.

I. The Reciprocity Requirement Should Be Retained.

Petitioners seek to eliminate the reciprocity requirement, contending that it unfairly penalizes attorneys based on the policies of other jurisdictions and limits the availability of legal services in Arizona. However, reciprocity functions as an essential safeguard, ensuring that attorneys admitted to practice in Arizona satisfy standards of competence and professionalism comparable to those required of Arizona attorneys.

Reciprocity ensures that attorneys admitted on motion originate from jurisdictions with similar requirements for legal education, bar examination, and professional conduct. Eliminating this requirement could permit attorneys from jurisdictions with less rigorous standards to practice in Arizona, thereby diminishing the quality of legal services and increasing risks to Arizona residents.

Petitioners rely on data from the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility to argue that reciprocity does not correlate with attorney competence. This data, however, is insufficient to justify dismantling a long-established safeguard. The absence of disciplinary complaints in certain jurisdictions does not establish that attorneys admitted from those jurisdictions meet Arizona’s standards of competence and professionalism.

Reciprocity also promotes fairness by ensuring mutual admission opportunities for Arizona attorneys. Removing this requirement would disadvantage Arizona lawyers seeking admission in non-reciprocal jurisdictions, creating an inequitable imbalance in interstate legal practice.

II. The Active Practice Requirement Should Be Retained.

Petitioners also propose eliminating the requirement that applicants have engaged in the active practice of law for three of the preceding five years. This requirement is critical to ensuring that attorneys admitted on motion possess recent, relevant experience and are prepared to competently serve Arizona clients.

The active practice requirement ensures that admitted attorneys have maintained practical, hands-on engagement with the law. Eliminating this safeguard could permit individuals with outdated or insufficient experience to practice in Arizona, thereby jeopardizing the quality of legal services.

Although petitioners suggest alternative measures—such as additional continuing legal education requirements—these measures are not an adequate substitute for recent, real-world legal experience. Practical competence cannot be fully assessed through coursework alone.

III. The Foreign Education Provision Raises Significant Concerns.

Petitioners propose permitting foreign-educated attorneys to satisfy the Juris Doctorate requirement if their education has been deemed substantially equivalent by another U.S. jurisdiction. This proposal raises serious concerns.

The amendment would require Arizona to rely on equivalency determinations made by other jurisdictions, which may apply standards that differ from Arizona’s requirements for legal education. As a result, attorneys whose educational backgrounds do not meet Arizona’s standards could be admitted to practice.

Moreover, absent direct oversight of the equivalency determination process, Arizona risks admitting attorneys who lack the requisite legal knowledge or skills to competently represent clients in this state.

IV. Conditional Practice Pending Character and Fitness Review Is Premature.

Petitioners further propose allowing attorneys in good standing in other jurisdictions to conditionally practice law in Arizona while their character and fitness review is pending. This proposal undermines the integrity of the admissions process and presents unacceptable risks to the public.

The character and fitness review is a fundamental component of attorney admission, designed to ensure that applicants meet the ethical and professional standards required to practice law. Permitting conditional practice before the completion of this review could expose Arizona residents to attorneys who ultimately may not satisfy these standards.

Additionally, implementing a conditional practice system would impose significant administrative burdens on the Committee on Character and Fitness, potentially delaying reviews and diverting limited resources from other essential responsibilities.

V. The Proposed Amendments Do Not Adequately Address Arizona’s Legal Services Shortage.

Petitioners assert that the proposed amendments will alleviate Arizona’s shortage of legal services, but there is no evidence that eliminating reciprocity or active practice requirements will meaningfully increase the number of competent attorneys practicing in Arizona or improve access to legal services for underserved populations.

Petitioners acknowledge that Arizona has already enacted substantial reforms to address access-to-justice concerns in these communities, including permitting non-lawyer ownership of law firms and authorizing paraprofessionals to provide limited legal services. As the recent three-part series in the Arizona Republic has shown, those well-intended reforms have had some rather unfortunate consequences leading to increased consumer complaints and allegations of “’deceptive’ schemes that ‘commoditized’ car accident victims.” Future efforts should build upon, improve, and correct these targeted reforms to address the shortage of competent legal services, rather than further weakening established Arizona attorney standards and harming Arizona’s communities.

VI. Conclusion.

The proposed amendments would erode the integrity of Arizona’s attorney admission process, diminish public protection, and fail to meaningfully address the state’s legal services challenges. For these reasons, the Court should deny the Petition.

Heidi J. Thompson
Lifeguarding Legacies, PLLC
Bar # 0034570
4937 Blanche Ct.,
Saint Cloud, FL 34772
(602) 529-1827
[email protected]
www.lifeguardinglegacies.com

I passed the Florida Bar in 2007, but did not choose to practice law until 2018, when I took the Arizona Bar exam and started my estate planning practice. Last year, I moved back to Florida, but continue to serve clients in Arizona through a remote practice.

I join my colleagues in their rejection of the overbroad and unnecessary proposed rule and favor the very well stated response of Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg.

As states like New York make it less appealing to practice, lawyers will be seeking moves to states with lower tax rates and less burdensome economies. Arizona will be among the states at the top of this list. (Florida will be there as well.)

Eliminating the reciprocity provisions will make it easy to fill lawyer coffers without any accountability to alleviate resident burdens that prompt this proposal.

Good fences make good neighbors; and bar entry requirements make very good fences, indeed.

Heidi

Michelle Zurcher (AZ Bar 034905)
Lasting Legacies Law Firm, PLLC
PO Box 13343
Chandler, AZ 85248
Phone: 602-456-2322
[email protected]

I agree with Attorneys Trachtenberg and Shapiro. I respectfully oppose the proposed amendment to Rule 34(e) because it weakens Arizona’s longstanding commitment to uniform standards of attorney competency and public protection. Admission to the State Bar of Arizona should reflect demonstrated knowledge of Arizona law, procedure, and professional responsibility, not merely licensure and practice in another jurisdiction. Expanding admission for out-of-state attorneys without requiring examination or a comparable demonstration of Arizona-specific competence creates a two-tiered system of entry and risks diminishing public confidence in the integrity of this Court’s regulatory authority over the practice of law. The protection of Arizona clients and the preservation of consistent, state-specific standards should remain paramount.

David J. Diamond
Diamond Law Firm, PLLC
PO Box 65237
Tucson, AZ 85728
Phone: 520-909-0909
Email: [email protected]

I have been practicing law in Arizona for the past 45 years. I have read Mr. Trachtenberg’s submission and agree with his position. As such, I fully adopt his comments and urge the rejection of this proposed rule change.

Paul J. Mooney
Arizona State Bar No. 006708
Mooney, Wright, Moore & Wilhoit, PLLC
14301 N. 87th Street, Suite 207
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Telephone: (480) 615-7500
Email: [email protected]

Dear Supreme Court:

I am writing in support of the proposed change to Rule 34. My reasons are pretty straightforward. Over the last nearly 46 years, I have practiced law in Arizona. I started at Fennemore Craig, P.C. in 1980, and my practice area is in a very niche area that involves litigation of state tax cases. In particular, I've represented railroads, interstate pipelines for various commodities, telecommunications companies, utilities and electric generation (both conventional and renewable), airlines, mining and other similar industries, most of which are valued for tax purposes as going-concerns. During the last 45 years, I have appeared in cases in 31 different states. Early in my career, most of those cases were tried in federal courts around the country. I've been admitted in at least 15 U.S. District Courts in five different Circuits. I've argued cases at the Ninth Circuit arising out of cases tried in Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington, and I've argued before the Tenth Circuit in cases arising in Utah, Montana and Wyoming. I've argued before the Eighth Circuit in a case arising in Missouri, and in the 11th Circuit in a case from Texas, and in the Fifth Circuit in a case from Georgia. Since then, I've appeared in state courts throughout the country and I've argued before the Supreme Courts in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin. I've also had two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, but due to the specialized nature of such cases, I have not argued before that Court.

I've never been licensed to practice anywhere but in Arizona. So, in the state court actions, I've always had to associate with local counsel and pay to be admitted pro hac vice. I'm 71 years-old now and nearing the end of my career, but I believe we have made it far too difficult to practice law in this country. Some states have made it easier to gain admission through reciprocity, and I believe that is a good thing for the clients we represent. Litigation is already way too expensive, but requiring a client to hire two lawyers in every out-of-state case is very burdensome. In specialized areas of the law such as mine, it can even prevent some actions from being pursued due to this cost. I've never been denied admission on a pro-hac vice basis, but it adds both time and expense to the client to do this, with no real discernible benefit to the client because one of those two lawyers is inevitably just a sponsor. I've also acted as the sponsoring attorney for other attorneys in litigation taking place in Arizona, so I'm familiar with both sides of this issue. I've also worked with the Goldwater Institute over the years on specialized tax litigation, and I'm aware they are sponsoring this Rule change. I believe a change is long overdue. Accordingly, I am respectfully requesting the Court to consider relaxing Arizona's overly-restrictive rules on out-of-state admission. The law has evolved to the point where state boundaries are largely irrelevant in commerce and industry, so why shouldn't the practice of law be the same?

Sincerely, Paul J. Mooney

ANDREW MATHERS, Attorney
AZ Bar #33628
Trusts, Wills and Estate Planning
1166 E. Warner Rd., Suite 216
Gilbert, AZ 85296
(480) 653-6770
https://andrewmatherslaw.com

I want to object to the proposed rule that would change Arizona bar reciprocity requirements, specifically by allowing other states like California to join our bar without reciprocation. This harms Arizonans. California laws and rules differ drastically from Arizona's. I know this because I worked at a California law firm. Also, it is blatantly unfair to Arizona lawyers because California lawyers can join our bar but we cannot join theirs through reciprocity. Please do not pass this unfair and dangerous rule. Thank you.

Lawrence (Larry) J. Aldrich
7520 E. McLellan Lane
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
(520) 404-9119
[email protected]
Member, District of Columbia Bar (#938720)

Dear Members of the Arizona Supreme Court:

I am a long-time (34 years) resident of Arizona, first in Tucson, then in Scottsdale. I came to Arizona as CEO of a Tucson business (Tucson Newspapers), not to practice law. But for most of my time in Arizona, I remained an active member in good standing of the DC Bar. I am today an active member in good standing.

I served as the top legal counsel for another Arizona business (University Physicians Healthcare), where, per the advice of Arizona counsel, I was able to practice because I represented a corporation rather than individuals. I have never represented any individuals in the State, in large part because I am unable to provide my legal services today without violating the rules of the Arizona Supreme Court.

I fully support the proposed changes to Rule 34(e), which are wise and would expand the public's access to additional high-quality lawyers at a time when such access, especially for individuals, may be challenging. If I choose to represent anyone in the future (subject to these proposed changes to this Rule), I would almost certainly would offer my services pro bono.

I have comments on only items 2 and 4 of the proposed changes (re item 1, I'm pretty sure that DC recognizes full reciprocity if Arizona were to do so, so that item would not affect me; re item 3, I graduated from an ABA-approved law school, so again, no effect).

I fall squarely in item 2. I "stepped away" from the practice of law several times to serve as a top corporate official. Yet throughout most of my residency in Arizona, I remained an active member in good standing of the DC Bar. While I was unable to help any individuals in an official legal capacity, I remain very proud to be an active attorney. Today, I also serve as an expert witness in complex litigation, and being an active member enhances my opinions.

If the Court were to modify this Rule, and if I were to try to help any individuals in Arizona, I would do all the work required to ensure that I could properly represent those individuals. I fully understand, respect, and appreciate my ethical responsibilities and would never do anything inconsistent with those responsibilities.

And for item 4, I think allowing such representation under "conditional" approval (subject to "character and fitness" investigation) is wise. In about 2007, I decided to try to get my Arizona license. Since I have held many jobs since law school, the paperwork daunted me, but I completed those forms. Alas, I was promoted to CEO before completing my bar review course, and never finished the process. I know I would have to complete the work again, and I would be willing to do so if I choose to represent others. Moreover, I'm certain I never, throughout my active DC Bar career, received any complaints, formal or informal.

I understand how current Arizona-licensed lawyers might raise concerns about the impact of these changes on their careers and income. Of course, that would never be said directly, just raised in the context of "protecting the public." As an antitrust lawyer, I understand the impacts of competition.

However, in my humble opinion, the Court should take into account how these changes might improve access for all Arizonans. In fact, I assume that that is the Court's principal concern here. This Court often leads the nation in finding novel ways to expand such access, while always ensuring that all lawyers practicing in Arizona uphold their ethical obligations.

I'm confident this Court will make the right decisions here. Thank you for allowing me to comment!

Hon. Andrew J. Becke
ASB No. 025362
Vice-Chair, Committee on Character and Fitness
Arizona Supreme Court
1501 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email protected]

Response of the Committee on Character and Fitness to R-26-0006

Kristina Tuba on Behalf of the Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee
Vice Chief Justice Lopez IV, Chair
Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee
Arizona Supreme Court
Certification and Licensing Division
1501 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-452-3378
[email protected]

Commenter:
Elizabeth Burton Ortiz
State Bar No. 012838
Executive Director
Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC)
3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 850
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: 602-542-7222
Fax: 602-274-4215
[email protected]

This is a Comment submitted by the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC) in the matter of R-26-0006; Petition to Amend Rule 34(e), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court.