Linda Marie Brown, Esq
BLACK MOUNTAIN LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2000 W Bethany Home Rd Ste 200
Phoenix, AZ 85015
(928) 299-2296

Noted that there is no confusion on my end as to what a document preparer is and what a paraprofessional is as I agree that this request is unlike a Nurse Practitioner since the term "nurse" avoids any confusion. In this instance, the Paraprofessional is concerned they may be confused with a paralegal, while in that same vein, lawyers are concerned that the public may confuse a legal practitioner with lawyers. That said, again, is extend my strong non-support of this amendment.

Michael Houlberg
Director of Special Projects
The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System
2060 South Gaylord Way
Denver CO, 80208
[email protected]
(303) 871-6647

Please see the attached comment supporting, in part, the proposed amendment.

Daniella M. Montez
Family Law Legal Paraprofessional
19445 W. Indian School Rd., Ste. 102 #107
Litchfield Park, Arizona 85340
(623) 526-2322
[email protected]

The term paraprofessional has caused confusion with the public and even current members of the bar. Often, we are mistaken for paralegals or document preparers. I am continually questioned whether I can provide legal advice or represent an individual, and constantly have to explain the paraprofessional license and the work I am approved to perform. We are practitioners - we are qualified and approved to practice law and advocate for our clients just as an attorney, albeit with certain restrictions. We are held to the same ethical and legal standards as attorneys. The path to become a licensed legal paraprofessional is not an easy one. We are deserving of a title that recognizes the value this license serves. Our title should reflect what the Arizona Supreme Court approved us to do - PRACTICE law. The current title diminishes our role and has caused public confusion. I fully support the proposed petition.

Amber D. Labadie
Arizona Legal Paraprofessional (Family Law)
4500 S Lakeshore Drive, Suite 300
Tempe, Arizona 85282
(480) 598-8724
[email protected]

I am one of the first ten licensed legal paraprofessionals and practice family law. Yes, I am able to practice law. I am not a paralegal or a document preparer.

It has been more than two years since I was licensed and no one that I speak to has ever heard of a legal paraprofessional. They are completely perplexed. Even when I consult with potential clients, none of them understand the role when it has been explained to them. I explain that I am licensed by the State Bar (like an attorney) and that I can practice law, give legal advice and even appear in court but they still think I am some sort of paralegal. Everyone has heard of a nurse practitioner and most of us have gone to a nurse practitioner. We know they can give medical advice, prescribe medicine and practice medicine. I fully and completely support changing our title from Legal Paraprofessional to Legal Practitioners so the public, my clients, other attorneys, judges and even my own family can understand my license. My clients refer to me as their attorney and I quickly correct them but they can't even say the word legal paraprofessional, let alone tell their spouse that they have hired one.

Linda Marie Brown
BLACK MOUNTAIN LAW OFFICES, PLLC
Bullhead City, AZ
(928) 299-2296

While persons are commended for their commitment and contributions to the legal profession, a LP is not the only party who vigorously studies to obtain a level of education to work and serve the public. Paralegals, legal secretaries, certified legal document preparers and attorneys, as well, also endure specific training and education to obtain their title. In the response provided by Ms. Montez, it is concerning that she types in upper case the term PRACTICE law. While it is understood LPs may appear in court on permissible areas of law, stating that one can PRACTICE law without following with a caveat as to their limitations gives the misconception that they can PRACTICE law in the broadest term of the word. It is believed that permitting one to throw around the term of a legal practitioner adds more confusion and could lead to misuse and abuse of the privilege one is trained to perform. Ms. Montez seems to shout out that she can PRACTICE law but adds nothing more immediately following to any limitations placed on the title or training of a LP. In all respects, LPs appear to be upset that they may be confused as CDP or paralegals but in their quest fail to give credence to attorneys and lawyers who may, if the petition granted, be confused as LPs. Legal Paraprofessionals are limited, and the term legal practitioner adds nothing more to alert the public as to their limitation. The Supreme Court did not issue a carte blanc approval to PRACTICE law but rather placed limitations in the interest of furthering access to justice for the general public.

I must defer to the Arizona Supreme Court decision in that it placed limitations on areas of law that a LP can assist the public and likely believed that the best means to alert the public to these limitations was to coin the term "paraprofessional". It would seem appropriate that the public is on notice that a paraprofessional is not a full-fledged attorney/lawyer and that LPs are limited in services they can provide to the public. And yet today, LPs are not satisfied and seek to retitle themselves as practitioners when the term practitioner provides no notice to the public as to limitations placed on practitioners.

In my humble opinion, I believe that the use of a paraprofessional is fairly a new concept. It would seem reasonable that as time progresses, the public will be better educated as to the variants of legal services available under the many different hats made available thus eliminating any confusion. However, if the proposal is granted, there is no turning back to the confusion that will result in the distinctions between an LP and its limitations and a licensed lawyer/attorney.

For this and other reasons stated earlier, I continue to maintain my opposition to the proposed amendment.

Daniella M. Montez
Family Law Legal Paraprofessional
19445 W. Indian School Rd., Ste. 102 #107
Litchfield Park, Arizona 85340
(623) 526-2322
[email protected]

In response to Ms. Brown's comment, capitalizing practice was merely emphasizing that we are licensed to practice law - something the public is confused by based on the term "paraprofessional". No where in my comment did I suggest we were able to practice without limitations. Rather, my comment specifically indicated our license has certain restrictions. Ms. Brown believes the Arizona Supreme Court coined the term "paraprofessional" to alert the public of our license limitations. However, that term has only served to confuse the public and they are unaware an LP is able to represent them at all.

Ms. Brown comments that I failed to provide details regarding the limitations or training of an LP. Pursuant to the Arizona Supreme Court website:

Under ACJA § 7-210, Legal Paraprofessionals can

Prepare and sign legal documents;
Provide specific advice, opinions, or recommendations about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, or strategies;
Draft and file documents, related to motions, discovery, interim and final orders, and modification of orders, and arrange for service of legal documents:
Appear before a court or tribunal
Negotiate legal rights or responsibilities.

****
While we have restrictions surrounding our license, by all accounts, based upon the above - we practice in certain areas of law for our clients. We are practitioners. Details regarding restrictions based on legal areas and the required educational and/or substantive work experience are further outlined in the above code.

As I initially noted, we are to adhere to the same legal and ethical standards as an attorney. We are required to obtain the same CLE credits annually as an attorney. LPs respect and do not hold themselves out to be attorneys. We are required to identify ourselves as legal paraprofessionals in documentation, and potential clients are aware of our practicing restrictions. The public should be aware that our license and role is not that of a paralegal or document preparer. Our license was created to widen access of legal assistance to the general public - especially those with limited financial means. The term paraprofessional does not alert them to the affordable representation options available. I am not upset to be referred to as a paraprofessional. I am upset that the public believes only an attorney can represent them in their case and advocate on their behalf.

I believe the Legal Paraprofessional role is extremely important for our community and provides affordable advocacy to low income individuals and others, who previously were not able to afford representation in Court. 

The current title “Legal Paraprofessional” is confusing and does not adequately portray the breadth and importance of this new role.  In my opinion, Legal Paraprofessional sounds too familiar to paralegal. Potential clients often confuse a Legal Paraprofessional with a paralegal or document preparer.  Clients initially do not understand their LP can represent them in Court and are licensed bar members. I think even attorneys are confused about the scope of the role.   

It is my opinion, the title “Legal Practitioner” is more clear.  It rightfully suggests the individual is a practicing member of the state bar and  I do not believe it will cause confusion for the public.  

Lawyers are consistently called attorneys or lawyers and on occasion counsellors.  I am not aware of any lawyers who refer to themselves as a “Legal Practitioner.”  In addition, with the increased use of Nurse Practitioners, I believe the community  is comfortable with the term and fully understand a Nurse Practitioner is not a physician, and will also understand the distinction between a Legal Practitioner and a Lawyer. Lastly, LPs are required to inform clients they are not lawyers and explain their limitations.  In my experience LPs are very careful with this requirement and will ensure there is no confusion to the public.   

I support this petition.   

DeShon Pullen
Certified Family Law Specialist
DeShon Laraye Pullen PLC
80 E. Columbus Avenue
Phoenix AZ 85012
602-834-7005

Jennifer Stevenson
Legal Paraprofessional
Arizona Attorney General's Office
2005 N. Central Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[email protected]


As a practicing legal paraprofessional licensed in family law, I support this petition.  There is a great deal of confusion among the public and the legal community regarding the roles of LPs.  Although licensing began in 2021, the gap in understanding has not been reduced.

My experience differs from the other LPs that have responded, as I represent a government agency and not individual clients.  However, the confusion experienced regarding my role is the same.   The public that our client agency serves, who are often not represented by counsel, have no concept of what an LP is and often mistake my role as a paralegal or assistant to the attorney and not one of a licensed individual. The title of Legal Paraprofessional is confusing and does not adequately represent the role LPs were licensed to provide.  As many have pointed out, the term paraprofessional is defined as a trained aide who assists a professional person.  LPs are professionally licensed individuals, albeit limited, but still licensed.

I support the name change to Legal Practitioner as I believe it will assist the public in understanding what an LP is and take the ambiguity out of the term.  I do not believe that this will blur the lines between attorneys and LPs as attorneys are not commonly referred to as legal practitioners by their clients.

Disclaimer:  The opinions I have expressed are my own and not the opinion of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.

I am a member of the public and I support the title change of the Legal Paraprofessionals to the title of Legal Practitioner.

The title Legal Paraprofessional is often used in law/legal offices as an interchangeable title. It can represent a wide range of individuals who occupy positions from Mitigation, Investigator to Legal Assistant. The commonality in all those titles is they support an Attorney. With this being said, prior to being educated on this new role approved by the Arizona Supreme Court, I found myself associating the Legal Paraprofessional as a member of a support staff.

It was encouraging to learn that alternative legal representation could be available to those who might not be able to afford such a high retainer. Now that Arizonans have options if they require legal assistance, in the limited scope areas, I believe it would be much easier to identify and understand this role if the title were changed to Legal Practitioner.

Erin Dean
10242 E. Capri Ave.
Mesa, AZ 85208
602-571-4281

Thomas Johnson
[email protected]
612-877-0544
I am a member of the public.

I am a client of Stephanie Villalobos, Arizona’s First Legal Paraprofessional, at De Novo Law.

I am in support of this change, from a client perspective, I feel that the title change to Legal Practitioner would not necessarily give me more confidence in the hard work that Stephanie has done on my behalf, but it would make it easier to explain to the other people that I may refer to Stephanie instead of trying to explain what a Legal Paraprofessional is before expressing my trust, confidence, and the outstanding representation that I have received from Stephanie Villalobos.

Regards,

Thomas Johnson

Jennifer K. Moshier
Moshier Law
11260 N. Tatum Blvd. Suite 143
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
602-345-0455

I do not support this change. It will lead to unnecessary public confusion. Legal paraprofessionals chose to enter a profession where their first challenge is to educate. I empathize. As a lawyer who practices collaborative process for the past 14 years, I can speak to the challenges of educating at a time that people struggle to absorb. Yet to practice collaborative process in tandem with litigation is the path I chose because I wanted to offer a superior, less damaging and more transformative alternative to litigation. When you choose a path that requires that you educate then sell your specific ability and limitations to serve, you assume a secondary challenge. If anyone can understand that, it would be me.

I performed a quick search in google of the word "Legal Practitioner." The results are screenshot but could not be attached, which will result in the exclusive of vital information for consideration of this proposal. What I searched is what others in the public will search. Here was the definition I found:
https://www.lsd.law/define/legal-practitioner#:~:text=A%20legal%20practitioner%20is%20a,their%20services%2C%20while%20others%20cannot.

or here:

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
le·gal prac·ti·tion·er
noun
a person who practices law.
"the journal exists for both legal practitioners and academics"

Legal profession

A practitioner may choose a term to describe themselves such as an attorney, counselor or lawyer, but it's more about personal preference or to convey a sense of what they work on rather than any legal distinction about their services, Teicher says.1 day ago

Attorney vs. Lawyer: What's the Difference?

Those are the first results. Entities and people pay top dollar to be the first google search result, because that could be the only result many people ever consider. Top ranked results count, and the first page of google search results confirm that a practitioner is a lawyer. The public who searches this definition will quickly learn from the internet that a legal practitioner is a lawyer.

People who are pressured to find an attorney are typically operating from their sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous system. Their ability to onboard new information and understand complex and difficult technical distinctions, foresee future events and self-regulate is limited if not absent. These callers know what a lawyer is. They do not know what a legal practitioner is that differentiates the legal practitioner from a lawyer. Do not expect the average reasonable person to grasp a legal complexity in a time of emotional upheaval. The public that the State Bar and Supreme Court have expressed a dominant interest in protecting, will now be presented with an additional educational challenge that could later further complicate their circumstances rather than effectively delegate their obligation to self-represent.

Legal practitioners and paraprofessionals are not going to experience a reciprocal privity with lawyers. Lawyers struggled through three years of law school to begin a marathon of a career in a saturated, competitive field. The mutual professional understanding I share with many lawyers is virtually impossible to achieve with those who have entered this space and are viewed from a scarcity model perspective as redirecting work and thus, resources away from lawyers. To the contrary, from an abundance model standpoint, I appreciate the legal paraprofessionals who either take the work I would not accept or by their very role limitations render a case such that a lawyer must step in.

Legal practitioners and paraprofessionals do offer a valuable service. I'm thrilled to see one or two people felt they were assisted. But the overwhelming majority of the public weren't given the link to comment nor assisted with gaining access to this venue for commentary. We know nothing of the experience of most of the public with legal paraprofessionals. Most of my clients, sophisticated though they may be, would know not the first step to even access the supreme court website to opine here. I assumed when I saw non-lawyer and non-paraprofessional feedback that these individuals had assistance and direction in providing input, or they had some level of public awareness that eclipses that of many consumers.

The public has had a very brief window of time to even begin to grasp that paraprofessionals are available as an alternative to lawyers. Allowing the public the time necessary is vital to avoiding confusion. The concept of a “para” in the English language is not lost on most people. It’s something operating alongside another thing. In this case, paraprofessionals are operating alongside lawyers.

Clients should not be presented with yet more confusion, asked to pay for services they may misunderstand, when they are most vulnerable and challenged to recover financially.

I’m a member of the public, my name is Mohammed El Alami, my phone number is 781-600-5514, my email is [email protected].
I would like to express my support for the change to “Legal Practitioner” .

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

COMMENT OPPOSING THE PETITION

Candace J. Thude (ABN 500033)
Medina Family Law Associates, P.C.
6314 W. Union Hills Drive, Suite 200
Glendale, AZ 85308
EMail: [email protected]
Phone: (623)935-2870

Thank you for your perspective, Counsel Blommel. However, I believe the proposed change is beneficial and addresses several key points that enhance clarity and professionalism within the legal field.

Firstly, the term "Legal Practitioner" more accurately reflects the scope and responsibilities of these professionals. Unlike the term "paraprofessional," which implies a limited scope of practice, "practitioner" conveys a level of competence and authority that aligns with the actual services provided. This can help in setting appropriate expectations for clients regarding the capabilities of these professionals.

Secondly, while the public may have some familiarity with the term "paralegal" through media depictions, these portrayals often lack accuracy and do not always align with the true nature of the work. Transitioning to "Legal Practitioner" can help to rectify misconceptions and provide a more accurate representation of the role, emphasizing their ability to operate independently within their defined scope of practice.

Additionally, the concern that the term "Legal Practitioner" might lead to confusion due to a perceived lack of supervision is understandable. However, clear communication and public education about the specific qualifications and limitations of Legal Practitioners can mitigate this issue. For instance, Nurse Practitioners also initially faced similar concerns, but over time, through public education and regulatory clarity, the public has come to understand their role and limitations.

Furthermore, the designation "Legal Practitioner" does not imply an unrestricted scope of services. Instead, it can be accompanied by regulatory definitions and limitations that ensure the public is aware of what services these professionals can and cannot provide. This structured approach can prevent misunderstandings while still allowing the title to convey the appropriate level of professional competence.

In conclusion, while I respect your concerns, I believe that adopting the title "Legal Practitioner" will ultimately serve the public interest by more accurately representing the qualifications and scope of work of these professionals. This change, coupled with clear regulatory guidelines and public education, can enhance the understanding and trust in the legal services provided by these practitioners. Moreover, it is important to note that attorneys are known by several titles, such as "lawyer," "counsel," and "attorney-at-law," demonstrating that the legal profession can accommodate multiple designations without causing confusion. Thank you for considering this perspective and your comments, as I greatly appreciate your input.

Candace J. Thude, L.P. (ABN 500033)
Medina Family Law Associates, P.C.
6314 W. Union Hills Drive, Suite 200
Glendale, AZ 85308
EMail: [email protected]
Phone: (623)935-2870

Counsel Brown, I want to sincerely thank you for your contributions and comments to my Petition, and I want to thank you for your continued service to the ADR community for over a decade. I do want to take this time to advocate for this change, which includes what I am about to underscore herein.

As you know, having served as an Administrative Law Judge for the State of Arizona, that Administrative Law promulgation and the creation of new administrative agencies was in part due to the need for an agency that could specialize in certain areas, for example, the Department of Insurance, the Department of Housing, and even the Department of Child Safety. These agencies are created in part due to the ever-growing need for oversight in specific areas. Administrative agencies are formed to handle specialized areas, much as Legal Paraprofessionals are. Each legal paraprofessional submits to testing on their preferred area of law. Much like the process of regulatory enforcement, a legal paraprofessional is a mechanism that helps maintain the growing need for individuals who are desirous of a legal advocate in order to protect their public welfare. Both administrative agencies and legal paraprofessionals operate within a restricted domain. Smaller administrative law sections specialize in particular areas of administrative law, which is somewhat similar to how a legal paraprofessional focuses on an area of law. Both legal paraprofessionals and smaller administrative law sections contribute to resource efficiency within their respective contexts. Legal paraprofessionals may represent clients in certain legal proceedings or provide legal advice within the scope of their licensure, similar to how attorneys within administrative law sections represent their agency's interests in administrative proceedings or court cases. Where would we be without the creation and implementation of Administrative Law? It is the implementation of processes like this that pave the way for new advancements within the legal ecosystem.

I believe that we can all agree that the creation of a legal paraprofessional can feel uncomfortable, but with all new developments, there comes discomfort, much like the initial discomfort with the creation of administrative agencies. Yet, they have become an integral component of modern governance, playing crucial roles in addressing societal challenges, implementing legislation, and ensuring regulatory compliance.

As always, I am open to suggestions on what might be a better title if you have one, but I also encourage anyone to look towards the future of law and what that might look like and whether the title of “legal paraprofessional” accurately encapsulates our vision. Once again, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude for your contribution. It's incredibly important to me to hear all perspectives and to show respect to those who have laid the foundation for our work.

Candace J. Thude (ABN 500033)
Medina Family Law Associates, P.C.
6314 W. Union Hills Drive, Suite 200
Glendale, AZ 85308
EMail: [email protected]
Phone: (623)935-2870

Ms. Michelle Fox, DVM, thank you for your comment and position as it relates to my Petition to Amend Rule 31.3(e), Arizona Rules of Supreme Court (hereinafter “Petition”). As you may know, the development of the Arizona Legal Paraprofessional role and the role the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) license share several key similarities. Both licenses were created to address shortages and increase accessibility within their respective fields – the legal services field and the veterinary care field, respectively. By establishing new professional roles with defined copies of practices for each. Legal Paraprofessionals and DVMs undergo rigorous educational and practical training, followed by certification and licensure, ensuring that they can competently perform their specialized tasks. Each of these initiatives provide more affordable and accessible services to underserved communities, while maintaining high standards of practice and offering new career opportunities and professional advancement within their respective communities and fields. To address the issue of the name change, I will point out that the original name for a Veterinarian Doctor was in fact, the term “Veterinarian Surgeon”. The term “veterinarian” provided greater clarity to the public, distinguishing animal health professionals from other medical and surgical practitioners and overall, the transition to the term “veterinarian” reflected the growth and maturation of the profession. This title encompassed the expanded scope of services and ensured clear communication with the public as well as within the professional community. The creation of any licensure and/or title is meant to be free flowing, adjusting to the needs of the community and its scope. This is why I firmly believe that the title should be changed to “Legal Practitioner”. I want to sincerely thank you for your position, as I believe it to be my duty as the Petitioner to ensure that I provide clarity of my position to those who firmly oppose this Petition so that professionals can have meaningful discussions regarding the evolution of our titles.

Candace J. Thude (ABN 500033)
Medina Family Law Associates, P.C.
6314 W. Union Hills Drive, Suite 200
Glendale, AZ 85308
EMail: [email protected]
Phone: (623)935-2870

Mr. Johnson, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution to this forum and for your support to the legal community. We hope that your comment will help pave the way towards a title change. Thank you for your support.

My Warmest Regards,
Candace J. Thude