I respectfully submit this comment in support of the Certification & Licensing Division’s proposed amendments to expand and refine the scope of legal paraprofessionals (LPs) in Arizona, including the important updates effective June 12, 2025, relating to Family Law practice areas. The proposed amendments to authorize legal paraprofessionals licensed in Family Law to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) and supplemental orders dividing retirement assets—restricted to ASRS and 401(k) plans—represent a careful balance between increasing access to affordable legal services and maintaining rigorous consumer protections. These services will be available only to LPs who demonstrate: (1) A minimum of five years’ experience in Family Law; (2) Current malpractice insurance coverage of at least $1 million; (3) Certification as a QDRO Specialist through the American Association of Certified QDRO Professionals (AACQP) or an equivalent approved by the Supreme Court; and (4) Completion of Supreme Court–approved training specific to Arizona retirement systems. Additionally, the amendments allow LPs to assist with adoption matters and family-related orders of protection, contingent upon meeting additional qualifications established by the Supreme Court. These qualifications ensure that LPs are well-prepared to handle complex family law matters while expanding affordable legal assistance to Arizonans in need.
In my view, Arizona’s law schools are well-positioned to support the growing legal paraprofessional profession through a variety of relevant and high-quality legal master’s degree programs. Arizona State University, for example, offers not only the traditional Master of Legal Studies (MLS)—a strong foundation for non-lawyers—but also innovative degrees like the Master of Human Resources and Employment Law (MHREL), which directly aligns with potential LP practice in employment and labor law. This specialization provides practical, industry-specific legal training that could be highly valuable if LP authority is expanded in that area. ASU’s Master of Sports Law and Business also reflects the kind of forward-thinking curriculum that could support future legal paraprofessional roles in niche practice areas. Meanwhile, the University of Arizona’s MLS program offers similar flexibility and breadth, along with certificate options in specific legal topics, which helps tailor a candidate’s education to their chosen field. Their Master of Laws (LL.M.)—while primarily for J.D. holders—also signals a strong institutional commitment to advanced, practice-ready legal education. These programs, especially when aligned with LP scope of practice, are crucial to expanding a well-qualified and diverse pipeline of paraprofessionals who can help close the justice gap in Arizona. However, in my opinion, it is advisable that legal master’s degrees offered be aligned closely with the LP’s authorized scope of practice to ensure candidates are well-prepared for the services they will deliver. Nonetheless, allowing certain specialized degrees to stand alone as distinct certification pathways could foster innovation and accommodate emerging legal needs in the paraprofessional workforce.

In conclusion, I urge the Arizona Supreme Court to approve these amendments and encourage continued evaluation of outcomes to ensure equitable access and program effectiveness.

I am writing to respectfully share my concerns regarding the proposed rule changes that would allow individuals with a Master’s degree in Human Resources and Employment Law (MHREL) to qualify for a Legal Paraprofessional (LP) license in Arizona.

As a current LP who completed the Master of Legal Studies with a Legal Paraprofessional (MLS-LP) concentration, I have a deep appreciation for the thoughtful design and rigor of the current licensure pathway. The MLS-LP program, as offered by Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, is specifically crafted to equip future LPs with the legal knowledge and practical skills necessary for effective practice in limited jurisdiction courts. Its curriculum—focused on civil procedure, evidence, legal research and writing, and professional responsibility—ensures that LPs are well-prepared to serve clients and the public with competence and integrity.

While the MHREL is a valuable and respected degree, its primary focus is on the human resources field. It is my understanding that it does not provide the same depth or breadth of legal training as the MLS-LP program. Expanding eligibility to include the MHREL will seriously dilute the value of the MLS-LP degree. This could actually lead to no future students in the LP Emphasis scholastic program as the MHREL would likely be much more valuable for the same cost in tuition.

Many of us who pursued the MLS-LP degree did so with the understanding that it was the established and necessary credential for LP licensure. Personally, after my initial application was declined due to my having the wrong law-related masters degree, I made a significant additional investment of time and over $36,000 in tuition, textbooks and other resources to complete the MLS-LP program. Others likely made similar sacrifices, motivated by a commitment to meeting the high standards set for our profession.

Changing the requirements now would create a sense of inequity for those who followed the prescribed path and may also lead to confusion or uncertainty for future applicants about the most appropriate educational route to pursue.

The LP license was created to expand access to justice while maintaining public confidence in the quality of legal services provided. Preserving the rigorous educational standards of the MLS-LP program is essential to upholding this mission. Allowing such an alternative paths will diminish the value of the MLS-LP degree and the assurance of competence it provides. If additional legal training is needed, it is reasonable to expect applicants to complete the MLS-LP coursework, as others before them have done. This approach benefits students, educational institutions, and—most importantly—the clients we serve.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Court deny the proposed change and carefully consider its long-term implications. By maintaining the current educational requirements, we can continue to ensure that LPs are thoroughly prepared to serve the public and uphold the integrity of our profession.

Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,

J. Hastings, MS, MLS, LP