In response to the Proposal dated December 8, 2021, I would like to provide the following feedback:

The LDP program was created for the purpose of protecting the public from possible harm caused by nonlawyers (usually underqualified paralegals) while also providing a more affordable and attainable option to the public for legal services. This program has been in effect for nearly two decades, and has been so successful that other states throughout the country are now looking to Arizona LDPs for guidance in establishing similar programs.

As LDPs, we are held to a far greater standard than other non-lawyers because our licenses and livelihoods depend on it. I regularly see paralegals and other non-licensed individuals offering legal services in social media forums. There is little to no oversight or regulation of unauthorized practice of law in Arizona. The LDP program, however, creates an incentive for non-lawyers to continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard, both ethically and professionally, but we need to have the leeway to do so.

The Proposal greatly hinders an LDPs ability to perform his or her job as it states that "a legal document preparer shall not draft documents that require legal outcome-based research." In other words, if this Proposal is integrated into the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, LDPs would be prohibited from drafting any document that requires "Legal outcome-based research [which] is required to draft substantive legal motions, supporting memoranda, or appellate briefs [or] applying legal research to the facts of a client’s case to advocate for an outcome..."

This is not a realistic expectation for LDPs. I agree that LDPs should not give legal advice or assist with legal strategy in any way, and we should only draft documents in accordance with the instructions our non-attorney clients provide to us; however, we have a professional and ethical obligation to our clients to understand and apply the law to their cases.

In my practice, I often send clients to attorneys for legal advice. The attorneys review the client's case, provide legal advice, and assist the client in coming up with legal arguments. The client then reports back to me and instructs me on what to include in their legal pleadings. More often than not, this arrangement is made by the client because they simply cannot afford to retain the attorney. LDPs provide a more cost-effective way for clients to access the justice system, and we free up attorneys so that they are able to work on more complex matters. It truly is a win-win for everyone involved, but the Proposal would prevent this type of access to justice.

Many non-attorneys are able to access case law through the court library, but they do not know how to properly format the information into a proper pleading. These clients should not be left with limited options to (1) hire an attorney (which they cannot afford), (2) draft their pleadings without any experience or knowledge of the court system, or (3) hire an unlicensed and unregulated paralegal. LDPs are the alternative the public needs, but we must be given the full authority of the Code to do our jobs effectively.

I propose that the language be amended to allow LDPs the ability to apply legal outcome-based research so long as such research is found at the direction of the client. How the clients obtains that research (whether by him/herself or with the assistance of an attorney who is retained solely for that purpose) should be left to the client. The verbiage of the Proposal prevents LDPs from being able to take information that our clients provide to us and format it properly. Allowing LDPs to apply legal outcome-based research, but under limited circumstances, will safeguard the public from unauthorized practice of law while also ensuring that LDPs are able to continue providing a vital service to the public.

In this instance, with respect, I am writing this letter (attached) to address and strenuously object to not only to the content of the proposed revisions, but also to the form, and the manner which AOC and the Board of Nonlawyer Legal Service Providers (together, “Petitioner”) has presented a bifurcated “second” proposal for amending ACJA §7-208, after receiving resounding objections to the first proposed changes.

This is the second time Petitioner has attempted to make significant proposed change(s) to ACJA §7-208 in 2021. In the current (“second”) Petition, Petitioner evidently seeks to have previous comments and objections to its prior proposal posted in the rules forum (Pending Code Proposals-ACJA Web Forum) ignored, disqualified, or otherwise not admitted for consideration by the Court by bifurcating the two proposals and only presenting the second as an active proposal, when there were overwhelming negative comments from not only the public, but Certified Legal Document Preparers (collectively, “LDP’s”) with extensive experience, as well as outside counsel for the Arizona Association of Independent Paralegals (AAIP) about its previous incarnation, posted on or about 22 July 2021.

The two proposals for amending ACJA §7-208 are substantially the same, in that the proposals would create a scheme of wrongful over-regulation through additional, more restrictive regulations and an unfair and burdensome restraint on trade. The proposals are substantially against public policy, denying accessibility and simplicity for the self-represented litigant. The subject proposal would have a negative public and judicial impact, if enacted.

Additional, substantive comments and detailed objections to specific parts of the proposal are in the letter, attached hereto.

Once again, the Staff Attorney has filed a proposal for significant change in Sec 7-208 which will result in reducing the public's access to legal services and has done so without providing any justification or evidence of need for such proposal, violation of ACJA 7-201.

Any complaints to the Board for "legal research" or "substantive motions" appear to be miniscule, if any, and none that were presented by a consumer.

Now we have a proposal that provides a new and nearly incomprehensible definition for "Legal outcome-based research" which itself flies in the face of the LDP's granted ability to provide options to the Self-Represented Litigant (SRL) and includes a statement ("Legal outcome-based research is required to draft substantive motions, supporting memoranda or appellate briefs") which is questionable at best. One of the problems that LDPs have had in the past was the tendency of the Staff Attorney (and the Board at times) to "go after" an LDP for performing a service that the Staff Attorney felt, without documentation, was UPL. Those "prosecutions" usually failed if the LDP hired counsel and this "definition" appears to be made purposely vague with the intent to provide the Staff Attorney and the Board with a means to once again provide their own interpretation of the definition or code.

The recent task force for "Access to Legal Services" purported to increase or expand the public's access to legal help or assistance, but, so far, it appears that the Board and the Staff Attorney have taken the opposite tack and are trying to hinder that access. For instance, under this new definition, motions that require legal research, whether or not directed or requested by the SRL, are prohibited. This means that virtually all motions, except the very few that are "court-approved" in family law matters, will be prohibited. So...what are the Pro Se litigants to do then....go to an attorney that they cannot afford or blunder through it somehow by themselves?

Promulgation of this restriction will not only damage or destroy the hundreds of LDP businesses that have aided hundreds of thousands of Arizonans over the past 19 years but will restrict the ability of Arizona citizens to process and proceed with their legal matters.

The other objection I have is to the requirement of a "Professionalism Class". ACJA 7-208 is quite precise in stating its Code of Conduct including professionalism and ethics. The proposal of this class is not only an insult to LDPs but appears to be a method of inculcating the Staff opinions about how LDP's should operate their businesses. There is no need and no justification (once again) for such a class. The expense and inconvenience of this proposed class is a waste of time and money.

The proposed amendments were posted without notice to interested parties as required by ACJA 7-201, were not justified by facts or statistics, and may even be unconstitutional. They should be rejected by the Court and almost certainly, if not rejected, be challenged in federal court.

The proposed changes to ACJA 7-208 regarding the "legal outcome-based research" is very restrictive and setting CLD's up for failure. CLD's are important for the public good because access to the legal system is not always affordable and/or understandable to a lay person. CLD's provide assistance to a large portion of the under-served public. I am perplexed why this new language is being proposed unless it is trying to stop the CLD program now that the Legal Paraprofessional (LP) program has movement. What is the ultimate goal of this proposed change? What protection would it provide the public? Would that protection outweigh the harm to the public? Does the public even understand how restrictive this proposed language is and how it will cause a ripple affect in the public's options for help? This will actually cause public harm as the resources for accessing the legal system is already difficult for most and for some not even attainable without a CLD's assistance. People are going to their aunt, cousin, friend because they can't navigate the system, or understand what the forms are instructing them to do. The CLD's at least understand the basics of legal terminology and how to navigate the filing of documents, etc. The Court's would become more congested as the public attempts to file their own documents, the Clerk's Office would have a higher call volume as the public tries to get help that the Clerk's Office can't provide, documents would get lost because of the public not knowing where to file or make sure copies get the Judge's division, etc. Essentially, this proposed language puts such a strong restriction on CLD's that they have zero room to do any good for anyone. Essentially, print a form and fill it out, which if the public can do that, they generally do not seek the assistance of a CLD. Should CLD's be drafting appellate briefs? This is not the question we should be asking. The question should be: If the public needs someone to draft an appellate brief, what are their options? (1) they could do it on their own, or (2) they could hire an attorney. The public only has two options. Is this just and reasonable for the public? Would it not make sense to have a third option such as a CLD so that at minimum the public has the option to get assistance? The majority of people are not going to file an appeal on their own. It's a detailed process and it's very technical. I personally would not draft appellate briefs even if allowed because this is not within my skill set, even with 31 years experience. But I also could not afford to hire an attorney and would love the option to have a CLD who does have this skill set to assist me in the preparing of the document. I understand protecting the public from harm, but seriously there is more harm by the public not having access to affordable assistance than any harm a CLD could do in the big picture. I have seen cases that break my heart because the laws that restrict professional also prevent the public in the most dire need from assessing the legal system. There are no good options for the poor, nor the ones that struggle with comprehension. Sure there are legal clinics, pro bono attorneys, etc. Has anyone that is reviewing this proposed change recently tried to obtain legal help through a legal clinic, or find a pro bono attorney, or get legal advice under $500.00? Trust me - it's near impossible. I am not advocating for CLD's to give legal advice, not pretend to be attorneys, or violate any laws/rules while assisting the public. I am, however, advocating that we consider the long term consequences and ripple effects for imposing such restrictive rules on CLD's. We are truly trying to help the public, help the Court System, and do good in the world. I appreciate anyone that has taken the time to read my input.