I agree with Arlene about the LP Program. I thought it was quite progressive to ADD another tier, but these Rule changes GUT the existing CLDP Program while the LP Program is not even fully-functional. Even if it was, there is no need to gut the CLDP Program as these amendments propose. Moreover, most CLDPs do not want to represent clients or go through the process to become an LP.

It's clear that, by proposing these changes, "they" (whoever he/she/they might be) want to create a lower tier of "form-filler-outers" whose CE requirements are decreased because they no longer require as much education. But the ethics requirement is increased, so at least they will be "ethical form fillers."

I want the total CE hours to remain the same and I want the successful CLDP Program to remain intact. Our CLDPs are outstanding professionals that I am proud to call my peers. I have come to know many over the past couple of decades and they really care about Arizonans. They work hard and are not getting rich in the process. It is a great public service to our state and needs to remain intact as it has since its inception.

This is a really good point about the unintended consequences of adopting the proposed changes and that it is foreseeable that the public will hunt for rogue paralegals who will provide them the services that will be curtailed if Section (F)(1)(a) reduces CDLP's to mere scriveners.

Jack Utter, Ph. D. CLDP #81832, A robust 70, looking among several local and capable legally trained adults to take over in five years.
From Ajo, Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court
Certification and Licensing Division
1501 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007

RE: Proposal to change ACJA 7-208: Legal Document Preparer

I am aware the reply period appears to be over, yet covid scares with several family members pre-occupied me until today.
________________________________

I am rather impressed with the thoroughness and focus of the other CLDP replies in opposition to the proposed rule change. I have to say I strongly agree with them.

I, too, find the proposal unnecessary, and somewhat curious as I do not see a public service element in it regarding the explosive population we are taking on in our beloved state. Moreover, I believe I would have to curtail my services considerably, or actually end them, in the small community where I am located--and where I am the only person providing any such service within a distance of 40 miles to the north, 40 to the south, 100 to the east, and 100 to the west. That sounds as if I would have a booming business, but I do not. I am in perhaps one of the remotest corners of the state, and there just aren't that many people in my area. Plus, most have limited and/or fixed incomes.

At a minimum, if I cannot assist a customer within the confines of the present rules, I can nonetheless provide them a free referral to a distant and qualified attorney, or attorneys, or county bar association, for example, who can.

I took the CLDP exam as part of my retirement plan to assist the largely rural, elderly, and minority (Hispanic and Native American) community where my wife (a Native American) and I have chosen to live. A few of my limited number of customers do not read or write any language, some do not read or write English, and others have a halting understanding of the English language. For example, later this week an elderly Hispanic widow, who can neither read nor write English or Spanish (her late husband could do both), is coming to see me with her bilingual and educated middle-aged daughter (and likely other relatives) about executing a simple residential beneficiary deed as an alternative to an even minimal proceeding in probate court (which is a 250-mile round trip from here) for her daughter.

Then there are the seniors, who feel comfortable with one of their own, and who I can help with access to legal facts and related information (for making their own informed decisions) that they would not otherwise have the slightest idea about how to obtain. At the outset of the free first visits I have with customers, I provide a reprint of ACJA 7-208 (F). Those few who don't speak English always have at least one family interpreter.

Yet, it's not just rural, or elderly, or minority folks I deal with. There are city-wise residents who come here from out of state and who still need some very basic "access to justice" for run-of-the mill issues they encounter in Arizona. One middle-aged couple who lived together for 10 years in Arizona, after meeting in our state and who apparently believed they were "married" (because of "common law marriage") asked me to address an issue that could not be answered without telling them there is no common law marriage in our state. I did not charge to tell them about A.R.S. § 25-111, to look it up on the Net, and to print it out. Both indicated they had grown up in widely separated towns in Colorado (where I am aware common law marriages have been recognized since at least the 1870s). They were a bit unnerved, and very appreciative.

I can't speak, with experience, for CLDPs in the urban areas of our state, but those who have replied to the proposed rule changes make very compelling arguments.

I believe I can nonetheless speak for those CLDPs in the absolutely under-served and unserved locales (like mine) about the value of the simpler and essential services we CLDPs can provide (including informed referrals) that can assist those among us who choose to represent themselves, for whatever reasons, and thereby aid them in avoiding sometimes personally catastrophic outcomes if they don't have reasonable access to that simpler service.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Utter, Ph. D., Ajo, Arizona, CLDP #81832
University of Arizona-certified paralegal
Arizona Notary Public