Dear Mr. McCall and the participants of the workgroups,

I disagree with the proposal to ban LDPs from preparing QDROs. I have been an LDP for over fifteen years and have prepared QDROs consistently for clients throughout that time. I have never received a complaint in my work, nor have I had any issues with the preparation of any QDRO.

Most of my clients do not have the means to pay an attorney for a divorce or a QDRO. I hear time and time again how they had initially contacted an attorney, and when their fees were too high for their amicable divorce, they then were either referred to me by the attorney or they found me online. The services that LDPs offer to the general public are invaluable. Not all divorce cases are contentious and most QDROs do not require the detailed nuances that may require legal advice. It is imperative that the public has the option to work with a professional that can assist them for a cost that is reasonable for what they need.

Further, many of my clients are relying on their QDRO award to pay their bills and provide food, clothing and shelter for their children. If they are no longer able to utilize the lower cost of an LDP to complete their QDRO, I am concerned that their well-being will be negatively affected as they will be forced to either attempt the QDRO on their own, which may take even more time for them to complete, or go into significant debt trying to afford an attorney to complete their QDRO. It is my understanding that the main idea behind the creation of the LDP program was to help the public have access to professional and affordable legal services. If this proposal goes through, you will be going against the very foundation that this program was built on, which will in turn create a large disservice to the public.

In regard to the concern that creating QDROs requires providing legal advice, I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, of all the documents I have prepared, the QDRO has been the most streamlined, direct, and they can be practically fill-in-the blank. The information needed is provided in the Divorce Decree or by the client and I simply facilitate that information to the Custodian through use of their templates and/or systems. If there were to be a more complex QDRO that required legal advice, which I have not seen as of yet, I would simply refer that potential client to an attorney, as I do with any other cases when I recognize that my scope of services are not enough.

Lastly, I am disappointed that both focus groups did not include a member of the general public, or an LDP. I believe that to truly have a good and honest conversation about what rules and regulations should be in place, you must have real representation of who is impacted by these decisions. The people that need these services, and the LDPs that are providing these services, should have the opportunity to speak for themselves and share their thoughts and ideas. In addition, any future proposed changes to the LDP program should be shared with all LDPs, preferably, in my opinion, the same way in which we are contacted for our licensing renewals, by emailing all LDPs.

This program is so beneficial to the public, and I would like to be a part of any focus group that is working to improve the program. I hope that if we can include LDPs and members of the public in these focus group, we will have a wonderful opportunity to improve the communication between the Certification and Licensing Division and its Members. I believe that would create a better sense of transparency and unity moving forward.

Sincerely,

Katie DeYoung
AZ Paralegal Services
AZCLDP: 81226
480.430.9590

Re: Objection to proposed limitations for CLDP's to prepare QDRO's
I have been a CLDP since 2018. The majority of my practice is in family law, I do not prepare QDRO's but I do refer my clients who require QDRO's to a qualified CLDP. The majority of my clients cannot afford an attorney or a LP for their divorce much less afford an attorney to prepare a QDRO for them. If CLDPs were unable to prepare QDRO's it would leave a large population attempting to prepare a QDRO themselves without the help of a professional that understands the procedures and the language of the legal system.
While I don't prepare QDRO's I do understand what goes into them and the information needed to prepare them. I believe there are fewer moving parts in a QDRO versus a Dissolution of Marriage. For a QDRO to be approved, there needs to be approval from the company along with the court and specific guidelines with which to follow.
This seems to me like more restrictions on the CLDP from attorneys believing we are taking money away from attorneys. I can attest that I am not, my clients are unable to afford an attorney, they come to me and my colleagues because they are entering a world where they do not understand the procedure nor the language.
Sincerely
Suzanne Howard
Certified Legal Document Preparer
Family Law Paralegal since 2015

I am sorry to be submitting another "comment", but, as I think about this absurd petition to amend 7-208 to prohibit CLDPs from preparing QDROs, I can' help but review and present my own experience as a CLDP:

In over 22 years as a CLDP and 14 years as an Independent Paralegal, prior to the establishment of the LDP certification program, I prepared nearly 500 QDROs. In all but 2 of those, the Plan provided required and specific wording for the QDRO, either via a model QDRO or a literal fill-in-the blanks form. In the 2 instances where the Plan didn't have a model, they provided a previously approved QDRO that had the names and specifics blacked out. I have never had a QDRO refused by the Plan or by the Court.

Please reconsider this proposal. It will only reduce or eliminate the "access to justice" for thousands of middle and low income Arizonans that the Supreme Court has promised, and Chief Justice Timmer has indicated is one of the goals of her administration.

BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION TO:
Mark McCall, Legal Service Innovations Manager
Certification and Licensing Division
Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts
1501 W Washington St., Ste. 104
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
[email protected]

Re: Comment on Proposed Changes to ACJA § 7-208

Mr. McCall,

This office represents the Arizona Association of Independent Paralegals ("AAIP"). Attached hereto is the objection to and comment on the proposed amendments to ACJA § 7-208(F)(1)(a). For the reasons explained therein, we respectfully request that the amendment be rejected. We appreciate the opportunity to explain and discuss these issues with the Court and Board in the coming weeks and months. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Brian Locker
480-788-9911
[email protected]