Why am I not surprised to see that the only participants in the group deciding this inane rule were attorneys and legal paraprofessionals, conveniently excluding any input from a single document preparer. This is strictly an economic protection amendment for them, and really has no valid basis in fact. The truth is that most large companies have very strict rules and models for QDROs and/or have contracted with companies like Fidelity to enable the Participants to do their own QDROs online or, in fact, even provide fill-in-the-blanks forms for their Participants to do them. The idea that it takes a lawyer or a legal paraprofessional to prepare them, except in a very few complicated circumstances, is ludicrous and a falsity. Actually, the reason given for this Amendment, i.e, that preparing QDROs is the practice of law, is in contradiction to the 7-208 rule itself. 7-208 says that an LDP may prepare any document that they are competent to prepare. This idea of the practice of law being prohibited, or being a basis for prohibiting the preparation of a document, is an incorrect interpretation of the Rules. 7-208 and Rule 31 of the Supreme Court actually include and allow preparing of any legal documents as the practice of law, albeit restricted by the provisions of 7-208. It does preclude LDPs from giving legal advice, but, in most cases, the Plan and the Company very specifically spell out the requirements and even the wording of most QDROs and thus preclude the necessity, in most cases, of giving legal advice.

As an addendum to my previously filed Reply: As one of the original developers of the LDP Program, in 2002, I want to point out that there were no specific document prohibitions on LDPs preparing of document and that was for a reason, a reason that was agreed to by the Bar members who were participants in the Task Force. They agreed that LDPs should be able to prepare any document that they had the competency to prepare. Now, after 23 mostly successful years of LDPs preparing QDROs, two "work groups" made up of lawyers and legal paraprofessionals who have a financially vested interest in reducing their competition, have proposed adding a specific prohibition of a type of documents, all in contradiction of the 7-208 rules. If this is allowed, it will be just the beginning of the manipulation of the program that has been very effective and beneficial for the people of Arizona, a manipulation that will eventually gut the program in favor of the pocketbooks of lawyers and paraprofessionals. The people of Arizona should be aware of what the real purpose of this amendment is.

I, Donald F. Steward, submit this public comment in opposition to the proposed amendments to ACJA Section 7-208 to prohibit Certified Legal Document Preparers from preparing Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs).

I have extensive knowledge of the Legal Document Preparer program, having practiced as a Certified Legal Document Preparer (LDP) since the inception of the LDP program in 2003. I also served on the original Board of Legal Document Preparers and on the ad hoc committee that developed 7-208. Additionally, prior to the establishment of the LDP program, I practiced as an independent paralegal for over ten years.

The proposed amendments are purported to be based upon the “expert opinion” of two work groups consisting of attorneys and legal paraprofessionals formed in October 2024, which concluded that “effectively developing a QDRO requires providing legal advice not part of the LDP scope of practice.” This assertion is unfounded and unsupported by over twenty-two years of LDP practice in this area. Indeed, LDPs have provided QDRO document preparation services for thousands of consumers in the general public within the current LDP scope of practice and code of conduct. Moreover, prohibiting LDPs from providing QDRO document preparation services would deprive the general public of access to low-cost services in such matters, in direct contradiction to the court’s access to justice policies.

A further basis for rejecting the proposed amendments to 7-208 is the apparent lack of expertise and stakeholder input into the workgroup’s assessment of LDP services as they relate to QDROs. I am informed and believe that no LDPs were involved as members of the workgroups or otherwise consulted in the workgroup investigation and deliberations. Clearly, a thorough assessment of LDP QDRO services must involve certain stakeholders, including LDPs with experience providing such services, members of the public who have received such services from LDPs, and businesses and retirement plan administrators who review and process QDROs. There is no information provided indicating that any of these stakeholders had input into the drastic decision to propose prohibiting LDPs from providing such services.

While the specific concerns of the workgroup are unknown, the suggestion that LDPs cannot provide QDRO document preparation services in compliance with 7-208 reflects a lack of knowledge and understanding of the current standards and practices in a highly structured process, which in most cases requires the use of model QDROs developed by a retirement plan administrator with minimal variables. The answers to the variables are largely provided by the decree of dissolution, related court orders, or the litigant who is the plan participant. Although a process is involved, the final product is largely a fill-in-the-blank document. Clearly, this is a type of LDP service conducted within the scope of the authority outlined in Section 7-208.

It should further be noted that there are no allegations of harm to the public despite thousands of QDRO document preparation services having been provided to the general public. In light of the above, the proposed amendment to Section 7-208, which would prohibit LDPs from providing QDRO document preparation services, is unwarranted and should be rejected.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of July, 2025

Donald F. Steward, AZCLDP #80339

RE: Objection to Proposed Restriction on CLDPs Preparing QDROs

I have worked in the legal field since 1990, first as a paralegal, then as a Certified Legal Document Preparer (CLDP) in Arizona since approximately 2006, and now as a Licensed Legal Paraprofessional (LP). Based on my experience, it appears the proposal to restrict CLDPs from preparing Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) is an attempt to clarify perceived inconsistencies created by the newer LP licensing framework.

While LPs are currently prohibited from drafting QDROs, it does not logically follow that CLDPs—who have been preparing QDROs for more than two decades—should now be subject to the same restriction. The CLDP statute and associated regulations have not historically barred this work, and to my knowledge, there is no evidence of systemic harm or consumer complaints warranting such a sweeping change. Simply put, any new licensing structure should not diminish or invalidate long-standing practices that have functioned effectively without issue.

Moreover, the preparation of QDROs by CLDPs, when within their competence, has proven to be a cost-effective and accessible alternative for self-represented litigants. As was raised by others in public comments, many QDROs are effectively standardized "plug-and-play" forms. If they are not properly drafted, the plan administrator will reject them. The process itself requires submission of the domestic relations order or decree, which must match the terms outlined in the QDRO for approval. Complex cases—where nuance or interpretation of retirement law is necessary—should rightly be referred to an attorney that handles QDRO’s.

As an LP, I accept that I cannot prepare QDROs under the current rule. I personally do not seek to change that rule through CLDP access. Because I am aware that most of my clients are of modest means and struggle to afford basic legal services, let alone specialized QDRO attorneys. The ability to refer these clients to a knowledgeable and experienced CLDP provides a practical, affordable solution that has served the public well for decades.

If the concern is that allowing CLDPs to continue preparing QDROs may open the door to an argument for expanding LP authority in this area, then the better course of action is to re-examine the LP restrictions—not to restrict CLDPs who have competently offered this service for over 20 years. This proposed change seems to be a disproportionate response to a regulatory inconsistency that could be addressed more thoughtfully and narrowly.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge a reconsideration of implementing this restriction. If the current system is not demonstrably broken, it should not be hastily “fixed” at the expense of affordability, access to justice, and long-standing professional practice.

Sincerely,

Kimberly S.
Licensed Legal Paraprofessional
Certified Legal Document Preparer
Family Law Paralegal Since 1990