Steven Simon Law, PLLC
1815 Purdy Ave
Miami Beach, FL 33139-1425
https://www.inslaw.net
Office: 305-972-6074

This proposed amendment is critical to safeguard the 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights and the 14th Amendment due process property rights of attorneys in the monies that we are required to pay as dues in order to maintain our bar licenses. Right now the Arizona Bar is charging over $500 annually for basic membership while I am only paying $265 a year for my Florida Bar dues and there is no good reason for this cost differential. Extra frills that the Arizona Bar governors want to spend should be paid by voluntary contributions.

Carrie Ann Donnell
American Juris Link
7000 N 16th St. #120-155
Phoenix, AZ 85020
[email protected]

I support the proposed rule to reduce State Bar membership dues to the cost of regulatory functions. I have worked in public interest law my entire career, providing pro bono services to the most vulnerable clients in Arizona. I have also offered legal services in Arizona at very low market rates while working part-time as a stay-at-home mom. It is critical that attorney bar dues are minimal in order to maximize access to justice. Any extra overhead, even a few hundred dollars a year, increases client costs and reduces lawyer availability for those who can least afford it. This is unjustifiable when the extra fees are completely unrelated to the lawyer's qualifications or ability to adequately represent her clients -- and especially when the fees are for services, functions, and positions that the lawyer doesn't use or actively opposes. For these reasons, I support the proposed rule.

James C. Mitchell
Rua António Gonçalves
LT 4, Apt 3A
3040-375 Coimbra, Portugal
[email protected]
U.S. phone 520-907-2478

I write to support this proposal and to stress a requirement for the legitimate regulatory activities suggested by Petitioners: to be essential, a program must work. No mandatory bar function should be undertaken without proof that it is likely to achieve its asserted goals. No existing function should be continued without periodic proof of performance.

One State Bar function identified by Petitioners as permissible is enforcing mandatory continuing legal education. Permissible, but unproven. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to reduce wasted time, onerous costs, and the State Bar’s temptation to push political viewpoints. At present, however, MCLE as imposed here fails any realistic standard of necessity for regulation of the practice of law.

Consider the recent appraisal of a distinguished task force appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court to study lawyer competency. After a two-year research project, the task force in 2023 “found no scientific study or empirical evidence to support the claim that compulsory CLE is an effective means of maintaining and enhancing lawyer competence, and after 40 years of mandatory CLE in Georgia and elsewhere, the absence of such support is striking. And yet, mandatory CLE requirements impose real costs upon lawyers, year after year.”

That conclusion is astonishing for its clear-eyed candor. Bar regulators nationwide have avoided any careful examination of MCLE for decades. To my knowledge, the only other state to rigorously study its forced CLE scheme was Michigan. There, the mandate was rescinded, with one Michigan Supreme Court justice finding that it had “no more value than chicken soup.”

MCLE’s futility is obvious to millions of its dragooned customers, but a hard sell to bar associations that cherish their cut of the course fees and the warm fuzzy bragging rights for promoting “education.” As I noted in 1999, MCLE represents “the unseemly mating of cash cow and public relations bull.” Our State Bar once boasted about the profit it was making, apparently forgetting that the State Bar’s CLE profit was the members’ loss.

As the Georgia report indicates, customary rationalizations for compelled CLE are crumbling in their vacuum of verifiable value. Over the years, however, some MCLE supporters have attempted to thwart informed criticism by arguing that the mandate is a done deal. “That train has left the station,” they say.

Yes, but what a muddled metaphor. Nobody ever bought an overpriced train ticket for the purpose of leaving a station. Travelers want to get somewhere. MCLE’s asserted destination was always a mirage, a mythical land where forced torpid seminars protect the public and ensure that all the lawyers are above average. That train has not arrived. For all we know, it’s off the rails and spinning its wheels in the desert sand somewhere, feigning optimism by puffing, “I think I can, I think I can….”

But it can’t, given the proven paucity of evidence supporting it. That train is a half-century late in some states, thirty-five years in Arizona. This is no way to run a railroad or regulate a learned profession.

Petitioners’ proposal would help eliminate the mandatory bar mission creep that sucked Arizona into the MCLE swamp. It could help lead to MCLE's elimination or at least to substantial mitigation of its harm. I therefore respectfully ask this Court to approve the requested rule.
_____

The Georgia Task Force report:
https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LCTF-Final-Report.pdf
(I am a former member of the State Bar of Arizona. Resigned in good standing upon retiring and moving to Portugal.)

Pearlette J. Ramos
President, Arizona Black Bar
P. O. Box 628
Phoenix, AZ 85001
[email protected]
(480) 213-8339
www.arizonablackbar.org

The Arizona Black Bar (“ABB”) opposes the petition, dated January 10, 2024, filed by the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute that amends Rules 32(b) and (c) (“Rule 32”), of the Arizona Supreme Court (“Court”) governing membership in the State Bar of Arizona (“State Bar”) which would: (a) maintain the current mandatory membership requirement for all lawyers; and (b) eliminate the membership dues for “non-regulatory functions.”

The petitioners urge the Court to reduce the State Bar membership dues to only mandatory requirements related to regulatory functions. However, the State Bar has a responsibility that goes beyond the regulation of Arizona lawyers as its mission is to “serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice.”

The State Bar performs vital functions that affect the legal profession, Arizonans and the community as a whole which are intertwined and interrelated. The proposed Rule 32 amendments would compromise the State Bar’s ability to offer the following:

 Ethics Hotline that provides proactive advice to prevent ethical mishaps
 Fee Arbitration Program that efficiently resolves disputes between the public and attorneys
 Maintain programs that improve access to justice
 Provide resources and assistance to partner bar organizations
 Engage in initiatives specifically aimed at improving lawyer well-being
 Offer educational programs that substantially benefits lawyers, the legal community and the public
 Organize pro bono legal service events for low and middle-income Arizonans

These and other State Bar programs are germane to lawyers’ ability to participate in pro bono work, educate the public about legal issues, and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

In conclusion, the State Bar is the heartbeat of the Arizona legal community. It is the foundational element upon which lawyers engage with one another and the public. The ABB and other partner bar associations rely on the services and functions provided by the State Bar. As such, the ABB urges the Court to refrain from adopting the proposed Rule 32 amendments.

Michael Kielsky, #021864
Attorney
KENT LAW, PLC
7540 S. Willow Dr.
Tempe, AZ 85283
480.359.5368
[email protected]

I support this proposed rule change, for all the reasons provided in the petition. As former (Maricopa County Bar Association) and current (East Valley Bar Association) president of local, voluntary bar associations, many if not most non-germane activities of the State Bar of Arizona are already activities, programs, and services lawyers seek and find in voluntary bar organizations.

The State Bar of Arizona's inability to out-compete and displace the voluntary bars should stand as proof that the State Bar of Arizona's use and abuse of mandatory bar dues for non-germane activities is not the exclusive, the best, or the only way for such. Even with its (Supreme Court sanctioned) near-monopoly and its mandatory dues (costs plus) model, the State Bar fails to out-compete the voluntary bars in the market-place. That alone is proof positive that limiting the State Bar by rule to ONLY the core of its regulatory functions will not harm the legal profession, and will most likely help further improve the legal profession and the better serve the public.

/s/ Michael Kielsky

Aditya Dynar (031583)
Pacific Legal Foundation
3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000
Arlington, VA 22201
(602) 582-0356
[email protected]

I support this rule-change petition. A vast majority of Arizona lawyers are required to interact with the State Bar of Arizona's website on only two occasions every year. The first is to electronically fill out and submit the yearly CLE affidavit around June. The second is to pay the bar dues and fill out related electronic forms in January. The petition strikes the appropriate balance between protecting SBA's core functions and permitting the collection of annual dues to cover only those functions.

My office address is provided for identification purposes only. I submit this comment as an individual. This comment is not submitted on behalf of my employer or anybody else.

/s/ Aditya Dynar

Dustin Romney
Frazier Law, PLLC
7702 E Doubletree Ranch Rd., Suite 300
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
480-352-5256
[email protected]
Arizona State Bar #034728


I fully support this rule change. It is manifestly unjust for anyone to be forced to fund political speech or activism with which they disagree. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court has recognized this as a constitutionally protected right. It is long past time for the Arizona bar to respect that right.

Kevin S. Ruegg, CEO
Arizona Bar Foundation
4201 N. 24th St, Ste 210
602-340-7356
FAX - N/A
[email protected]
Bar # - N/A

The Arizona Supreme Court established the State Bar of Arizona and tasked it with not just regulating the practice of law but gave it a mission “to serve and protect the public with the provision of legal services and access to justice.” In turn, and pursuant to this mission, the State Bar of Arizona created the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education (AZ Bar Foundation) as a separate 501(c)(3) organization in 1978, to assist in promoting access to justice for all Arizonans.

In partnership with the State Bar, the Foundation strives to fulfill this mission through shared responsibility for several joint programs impacting thousands of Arizonans each year. In 2023 alone: the Modest Means Project - a statewide reduced-cost legal help program - helped 12,300 people; Wills For Heroes – a free end-of-life care and estate planning program for first responders and their families - created 327 wills, and Mock Trial – a trial simulation program designed to engage students in the law - impacted 967 students. Additionally, during the COVID crisis, the AZ Bar Foundation and State Bar of Arizona partnered to create the Covid-19 hotline to help nearly 3,000 individuals understand changes in the law due to the pandemic.

Second, the State Bar of Arizona facilitates and provides strong support to the AZ Bar Foundation’s programs in numerous ways. In addition to financial support for expanding pro bono efforts, the State Bar organizes a member donation drive and promotes pro bono service and charitable giving to support legal aid services for low-income Arizonans.

Finally, the State Bar of Arizona serves and protects the public by building trust in the legal system through education of the public about their rights, hosting and promoting free legal clinics, and operating a public service center which receives more than 10,000 calls each year. Through all facets of its operation, the State Bar of Arizona consistently promotes trust in the legal system, access to justice and protects the public.

It is for these reasons that the AZ Bar Foundation submits this comment opposing the changes proposed in Petition R-24-0030.

Limiting the State Bar’s activities solely to attorney regulation would strip away the State Bar’s ability to partner with legal organizations and law firms to ensure that Arizona continues to promote access to justice. It would severely hinder volunteer lawyer assistance and campaigns to fund free legal help to those in need. Therefore, with great concern for the negative impact on fellow Arizonans and the AZ Bar Foundation, we respectfully request that the Court deny changes to the State Bar of Arizona as proposed in this petition.

Mauricio R. Hernandez (#020181)
[email protected]
P.O. Box 7347
Goodyear, AZ 85338
(623) 363-2649

COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF PENDING PETITION

Dennis I. Wilenchik
2810 N. Third Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-606-2810

I am in favor of the amendment.

Dr. Richard W. Morris, J.D., Ph.D.
Attorney at Law (Retired)
AZ Bar 002009
24408 N 40th Ln
Glendale, AZ 85310-3268
[email protected]
Tel. +1 623-582-2574

I in favor of and support the amendment filed by the Goldwater Institute to amend Rules 32(b) and (c), Rules of the Supreme Court.

I support the pending petition.

Charles F. Hauff, Jr., P.C.
office: 602.382.6314 | mobile: 602.361.2800
email: [email protected]

Snell & Wilmer
One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004-2556

I submit the attached letter on behalf of 31 Past Presidents of the State Bar of Arizona in opposition to this petition, for all the reasons stated in the letter.

DON BIVENS
DON BIVENS, PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Rd, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
President, State Bar of Arizona, 1998-99

Samuel A. Thumma
Chair, Arizona Commission on Access to Justice
Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
State Courts Building
1501 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3329
[email protected]
Telephone: (602) 452-6700

The Arizona Commission on Access to Justice has authorized Judge Sam Thumma, Chair, to submit this comment opposing Petition R-24-0030.

James P. O'Sullivan
AZ Bar #009236
Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.*
Shareholder
[email protected]
602-255-6017
Camelback Esplanade II
Seventh Floor
2525 E. Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016-4229

I oppose Petition R-24-0030 and respectfully urge the Court not to adopt the proposed amendments to Rule 32. By seeking to relegate the Bar to narrowly defined regulatory activities, my view is that the requested changes would directly undermine the Bar's ability to fulfill its Court-mandated mission. As an active Bar Member for the past 40 years, my experience demonstrates that the Bar is at its best when serving as more than "The Principal's Office."

As a business attorney with a considerable number of attorney clients, I have directly witnessed the value of the Bar to my clients and thereby to the greater public good, whether through the Bar Leadership Institute or the Bar's CLE offerings and publications, ethics guidance, practice management and member assistance, or mentoring services. The Bar, at its best, is an invaluable gathering place for the sharing of competing views, as well as an information hub that inspires collaboration and enhances professionalism.

I note that other Bar leadership forums exist for the thoughtful consideration of these proposed amendments. Both the Board of Governors and the newly-formed State Bar Advancement & Improvement Committee could presumably debate the merits of these proposals and provide recommendations to the Court.

Lastly, I endorse the previously submitted comments of the Arizona Black Bar, the Arizona Bar Foundation, and Mr. Bivens and his past-president colleagues.

*The views expressed are my own. I do not presume to speak for Tiffany & Bosco, P.A. nor for my firm colleagues.

Freddy Saavedra
AZ Bar #030848
President, Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association
P.O. Box 813
Phoenix, AZ 85001
(602) 753-8917
[email protected]

Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association (“Los Abogados”) opposes the petition dated January 10, 2024, filed by the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute that amends Rules 32(b) and (c) (“Rule 32”), of the Arizona Supreme Court (“Court”) governing membership in the State Bar of Arizona (“State Bar”) which would: (a) maintain the current mandatory membership requirement for all lawyers; and (b) eliminate the membership dues for “non-regulatory functions.”

Ostensibly, the petition’s purpose relates to a reduction in State Bar membership dues, limiting their collection to cover only mandatory requirements related to regulatory functions. However, the State Bar does so much more, and should endeavor to keep doing so. While the State Bar does indeed have a responsibility to regulate the practice of law in Arizona, the Arizona legal community and the public at large depend on the State Bar’s commitment to “serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice.” Los Abogados strongly believes that the petition would have a devastating effect on this aspect of the State Bar’s function.

The proposed Rule 32 amendments would harm Arizona’s legal profession and Arizona as a whole, by compromising the State Bar’s ability to offer the following:

• Ethics Hotline
• Fee Arbitration Program
• Providing Resources and assistance to partner bar organizations, such as Los Abogados and many other important organizations
• Initiatives aimed at improving lawyer well-being
• Educational programs that substantially benefit lawyers, the legal community, and the public
• Pro bono legal service events for low and middle-income Arizonans

Los Abogados believes that the above services and initiatives of the State Bar are critical aspects to the practice of law and access to justice in our state. Simply put, without these programs, many members of our community – particularly those from vulnerable communities -- would be deprived of much-needed legal services, having a devastating effect on the access to justice statewide.

Los Abogados strongly supports the State Bar and recognizes its importance in our state. The proposed amendment would have a devastating effect on the State Bar, our profession, and our state. We strongly urge this Court to refrain from adopting the proposed Rule 32 amendments.

From:
Arizona Asian American Bar Association

Arizona Black Bar

AZ-LGBT Bar Association

Arizona Minority Bar Association

Arizona Women Lawyers Association

Iranian American Bar Association, Phoenix Chapter

Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association

Native American Bar Association of Arizona


To the Arizona Supreme Court:
The bar associations listed above jointly write to oppose the Goldwater petition, which seeks to eliminate the State Bar of Arizona’s ability to fund non-regulatory activities.
These partner bars, and others who are not specifically named, seek to advance diversity in the Arizona legal community and create meaningful professional development opportunities for our respective members. The State Bar provides essential support to these numerous partner bars by enabling attorneys from all different backgrounds to network and collaborate.
The proposed rule change would significantly limit the State Bar’s ability to maintain programs that tremendously benefit Arizonans. Regulating the practice of law is about more than lawyer discipline. The State Bar improves access to competent and ethical legal professionals through free legal service events for Arizonans who cannot afford a lawyer, it provides resources and assistance to partner bar organizations, supports diversity initiatives, and develops continuing education programs. Approving this petition would also defund the highly regarded Bar Leadership Institute, which for over seventeen years has successfully provided leadership and skills training to early-career Arizona lawyers.
This petition will compromise the State Bar’s mission to protect the public by improving the competency, ethics, and professionalism of lawyers practicing in Arizona. The State Bar provides significant value to our community beyond just disciplining lawyers. For these reasons, we ask that the Court deny the petition.

Respectfully,

Christopher Heo, President
Arizona Asian American Bar Association

Dr. Pearlette J. Ramos, President
Arizona Black Bar

Randy McDonald, President
AZ-LGBT Bar Association

Alonzo Corral, President
Arizona Minority Bar Association

Anya Stangl, President
Arizona Women Lawyers Association

Saman Golestan, President
Iranian American Bar Association, Phoenix Chapter

Freddy Saavedra, President
Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association

Kevin Pooley, President
Native American Bar Association of Arizona

Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Community Legal Services (“CLS”), DNA People’s Legal Services (“DNA”), Southern Arizona Legal Aid (“SALA”), and the William E. Morris Institute for Justice (“MIJ”) submit the attached comments in opposition to the Petition to Amend Rules 32(b) and (c), Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of April 2024.

ANDREW P. SCHAFFER, AZ Bar. No. 037352
BRENDA MUÑOZ FURNISH, AZ Bar. No. 027280
MICHELLE J. SIMPSON, AZ Bar. No. 020199
WILLIAM E. MORRIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
3707 North Seventh Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85014-5095
(602) 252-3432
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

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
[email protected]