All posts by adminsp

Decrease in Arizona’s Post-Judgment Interest Rate

by Craig Stephan


Due to economic fallout from the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Federal Reserve cut the target federal funds rate by 150 basis points in the first half of March, 2020. As a result, the prime rate has decreased to 3.25 percent per annum, as reflected in the Federal Reserve’s Statistical Release H.15.[1]

The Arizona statute that deals with post-judgment interest rates is A.R.S. § 44-1201. Subsection B of this statute provides:

    “B. Unless specifically provided for in statute or a different rate is contracted for in writing, interest on any judgment shall be at the lesser of ten per cent per annum or at a rate per annum that is equal to one per cent plus the prime rate as published by the board of governors of the federal reserve system in statistical release H.15 or any publication that may supersede it on the date that the judgment is entered. The judgment shall state the applicable interest rate and it shall not change after it is entered.”

Due to the decrease in the prime rate, the post-judgment interest rate in Arizona is now 4.25 percent per annum, unless a written contract or statute provides otherwise. In certain circumstances, subsection B may also be used to determine a prejudgment interest rate. See A.R.S. § 44-1201(F) (“If awarded, prejudgment interest shall be at the rate described in subsection A or B of this section.”).

[1] See

Ability to Manage Practice Areas Added to Website

The Association of Sole Practitioners and Small Firms of Arizona previously added attorney search capability to its website. This allows a user of the website to use the Attorney Search button to search for members of the Association who practice in any of 69 different practice areas. These practice areas cover the gamut from administrative law to wrongful death. In order to implement this functionality, the Association maintains a list of practice areas for each of its members.

Until now, changes to a member’s list of practice areas had to be made via request. To simplify this process, the Association has upgraded its website to allow its members to manage their own list of practice areas. This gives members the ability to make changes that reflect the current nature and emphasis of their practice. These changes are immediately reflected in search results obtained through use of the Attorney Search button. This is another example of the way in which the Association supports its members, who provide valuable legal services to their communities.

Limited Scope v. Traditional Legal Representation: Unbundling makes legal services affordable.


by Debbie Weecks

In many circumstances, Arizona’s state court rules and attorney ethics’ code provisions accommodate the public’s needs to retain counsel affordably by allowing attorneys to “unbundle.”

    1. What’s “Unbundling”? Imagine, if you will, a full-service restaurant with fine linens, crystal, silverware, and table-side wait service. Now imagine the cafeteria-style buffet line. Both satisfy a customer’s desire to enjoy a meal out. Differences include the depth of service and the packaging, and most likely, the price-point of affordability to the customer who will spend more modestly. The similarity will be that both establishments will be subject to licensures and health codes. The buffet-line restaurant has “unbundled” while the sit-down wait service restaurant has provided a full-service meal. Both satisfy a need responsibly and well.

    2. Hiring an Attorney for Discrete Tasks or Full Representation – either’s okay, and both require the attorney and client to agree to the scope of representation. Either way, the same ethical rules apply, including those of diligence and competence as to the scope of representation offered.

With few exceptions, those practicing law or appearing in court settings must be attorneys admitted to practice law by the Arizona Supreme Court. As attorneys, we might concentrate our practices or we might practice multiple areas of substantive law. As to the latter, some of us are prepared for a variety of practice area requests to serve clients, for instance advanced directives, small business, disputes, family law, elder law, probate matters, litigation, contracts, or protective orders.

The same attorney might offer limited scope representation sometimes and at other times, representation from start-to-finish. In all cases, clients and attorneys will have agreed to the scope of representation, or what role is undertaken. For instance, a whole case or matter, or in contrast, unbundling with just a coaching session, or maybe a work-study session to review laws, recommendations, and reasonably foreseeable procedures, risks, and benefits.

Unbundling is a valuable tool and serves the public well for those clients who wish to gain a solid understanding and a game plan without long-term or continued representation.

Many of the solos and small firms participating on this website are pleased, when ethically appropriate, to offer either or both of Full Scope Legal Services or Limited (“unbundled”) Representation, depending upon the situation and analysis of the case, whether an in-court matter or transactional.

© 2015 The Law Office of Debbie Weecks

The information in this article is educational in nature and not case-specific. This discussion does not constitute legal advice or a statement on behalf of any court or organization.

This article is provided as a public service by the Law Office of Debbie Weecks. For more information about unbundled legal services, you can visit Ms. Weecks’ website, or contact our attorney members.

Opinion—Arizona Supreme Court State Bar Mission and Governance Task Force

by Mauricio “Mo” Hernandez

Although the public comments period has closed, there is plenty to say about the final report of the State Bar Mission and Governance Task Force. But to cut to the chase, read the last exhibit, which is Task Force Member Attorney Paul Avelar’s letter. You may not agree with every part of his argument but it is nonetheless an incisive, clear-headed and well-articulated dissent. Unfortunately, it was relegated to the last exhibit of the Task Force Report.

His arguments can be boiled down to four key points, which are paraphrased below:

    1. Abolish the “integrated” State Bar so as to separate the regulatory and trade functions that the Arizona Supreme Court has already tried to separate in practice. This rids the trade association of its veneer of state sanction and support and protects lawyers’ First Amendment rights;

    2. Recognize the State Bar as purely a regulatory agency tasked solely with protecting the public, to oversee and implement the regulation of lawyers and the practice of law exclusively in keeping with effectuating that pure regulatory function;

    3. Abolish the State Bar governing board whether called the Board of Governors or the Board of Trustees and instead rely on professional staff to assist the state Supreme Court in regulating lawyers and the practice of law;

    4. In the alternative, should the Arizona Supreme Court deem a governing board necessary, the Court should appoint a small board that better represents the public, not lawyers. Lawyers should not have the power to elect and control their own regulators.

The Task Force’s own recommendations are largely inconsequential and cosmetic, such as reducing the size of the governing board; changing the board’s name from “governors” to “trustees;” and adding new qualifications, term limits and related procedures.

Nevertheless, there is much in the Task Force Report to which one may take exception, especially the conflated mythology again fluttered out on frayed wings that only a mandatory bar can “ensure professionalism and competence” and protect the public from lawyers. This, of course, ignores the robust lawyer regulation and disciplinary regimes in 18 voluntary state bar jurisdictions. It also overlooks and misconstrues the panoply of membership benefits provided by voluntary bar associations, like Iowa’s, Colorado’s, New York’s, and Illinois’ to name a few.

Indeed, many if not all of these voluntary bar association programs and benefits rival and even exceed the non-regulatory programs, activities and services provided by the compulsory State Bar of Arizona. See, for example, the following links to the voluntary bar associations mentioned above:

But for the sake of a long overdue clarification, there is one misapprehension that needs to be addressed. It concerns the following paragraphs of the task force report.

    “The most common complaint from attorneys about a mandatory bar is that they pay for services that may not benefit them individually or that they may not use.5 It is true that an Arizona attorney does not need to utilize any non-regulatory bar services; those services are optional. That is, attorneys can forego reading the monthly magazine or decline to attend SBA continuing legal education programs or the annual bar convention (although the foregoing services are self-supporting and do not require the expenditure of dues). But other services – such as the client protection fund, the member assistance and law office management programs, and the conservatorship program – require the financial support of every attorney to be effective. The duty to protect the public is not owed just by the attorneys who become disabled, who mismanage a law office, or who cheat a client. All attorneys bear a responsibility to protect the public. An integrated bar assures that every attorney – not just half or even ninety percent of attorneys, but every attorney – shares the cost of that responsibility. These invaluable services will cease to exist with the demise of the integrated bar because no voluntary bar in Arizona offers them.

    “Most states have integrated bars. A minority of states use other models, which Task Force members have discussed. Arizona has had an integrated bar for more than eighty years. Although like any institution the SBA can be improved, the Task Force believes the integrated model well serves the courts, attorneys, and people of Arizona. The Task Force therefore recommends that the SBA continue to be an integrated bar association.

    5 “States that have voluntary bar associations by and large do not have lower overall bar dues. They charge both a mandatory regulatory assessment and separate voluntary bar dues, which together often exceed the annual membership fee in the State Bar of Arizona. An integrated bar benefits from economies of scale (for example, in human resources, technology, office expenses, and rent) that might require duplication if there were separate regulatory and voluntary entities.”

    Report of the Task Force on the Review of the Role and Governance Structure of the State Bar of Arizona, September 1, 2015, page 9.

The facts are set out in the chart below. The details therein were sourced from readily-available fee information from voluntary state bar jurisdictions. The attorney registration fee information comes from state court websites although since the Arkansas Supreme Court fee registration information was not publicly-accessible, it was confirmed by a licensed Arkansas lawyer. In almost all instances, fees for both attorney registration and for membership in corresponding voluntary state bar associations are graduated. In other words, new lawyer admittees pay lower fees in most every instance. And at the other end of the spectrum, in some cases, long term practicing lawyers also pay discounted fees. The fees charted below, however, are the full fee maximums for lawyers practicing past the entry-level graduated fee periods.

In addition, with respect to “economies of scale,” the voluntary Colorado Bar Association (among others) has slightly more members than the mandatory State Bar of Arizona. Also, the 30,000 member voluntary Illinois State Bar Association, founded in 1877, is not only larger but much older than the State Bar of Arizona. Although the voluntary Indiana State Bar is slightly smaller than Arizona’s Bar, it nonetheless has sufficient economies of scale to allow it to offer an impressive list of member benefits.

And take note of something else not mentioned in the chart. While the breathtaking $945.00 combined regulatory assessment and separate voluntary bar dues appear to make Connecticut a high cost to practice jurisdiction, the overall cost to practice is still lower than in Arizona. Why? Because unlike Arizona, Connecticut does not have mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE). This saves Connecticut lawyers anywhere from $600 to $1000 per year versus what Arizona lawyers pay to satisfy the annual 15 hour MCLE requirement.

The same is true of Massachusetts with its sizeable $761.00 combined regulatory assessment and separate voluntary bar dues. Massachusetts does not have an MCLE requirement. Nor does Maryland, which at $280.00 for both regulatory assessment and voluntary bar dues must be the lowest cost to practice jurisdiction in the United States.

The bottom line is two-fold:

First, in voluntary bar states, lawyers can simply elect to pay only their court-mandated regulatory registration fees and forego joining a voluntary state bar association. This automatically reduces their overall cost to practice as compared to Arizona.

Second, the polar opposite of the foregoing Task Force statement is true. Lawyers in states that have voluntary bar associations pay lower overall bar dues, in some instances far less than the current and still escalating annual membership fee in the State Bar of Arizona.


Goldwater Institute Contends Mandatory Bar Violates First Amendment

The Goldwater Institute has submitted a letter to the Arizona Supreme Court addressing recommendations made by the Supreme Court’s task force on the State Bar’s role and governance. The letter, which was obtained and made available by attorney Mauricio Hernandez, asks the Supreme Court to reject the task force’s recommendation that the State Bar remain integrated or mandatory. An integrated bar requires all attorneys to be members in order to be able to practice law in the respective jurisdiction. The Goldwater Institute contends that mandatory bar associations violate lawyers’ First Amendment rights of free speech and free association. Eighteen other states protect the public by regulating lawyers and the practice of law without the need for a mandatory bar. Therefore, a mandatory bar is not the only way to achieve lawyer regulation that protects the public.

Since the use of a mandatory bar to achieve lawyer regulation impinges on First Amendment rights, its use is subject to a heightened level of review known as strict scrutiny. The Goldwater Institute contends that the use of a mandatory bar association to achieve lawyer regulation in Arizona fails to meet the strict scrutiny test, so it is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Institute states, “[W]e urge the Supreme Court to no longer precondition the practice of law on bar membership in Arizona.” The full letter with its constitutional arguments is set forth below.


Final Report of Task Force on State Bar’s Role and Governance


by Craig Stephan

(Shorter version originally posted Tuesday, September 1, 2015)

The final report of the task force set up by the Arizona Supreme Court to review the State Bar’s role and governance is now available. We have provided a link below to the final report. The task force recommendations include:

  • Amending Supreme Court Rule 32 to clarify that the primary mission of the State Bar is to protect and serve the public and, secondarily, to serve its members.
  • Continuing the State Bar of Arizona as an integrated bar supervised by the Arizona Supreme Court, with membership in the integrated bar being a requirement for practicing law in Arizona.
  • Reducing the size of the State Bar’s governing board.
  • Setting qualifications, term limits, and a process for removing board members.
  • Having three instead of five officers on the governing board, with appointed as well as elected board members eligible to be officers.
  • Changing the name “Board of Governors” to “Board of Trustees” in order to emphasize the fiduciary role of the governing board.
  • Proposing rule amendments that provide Arizona Supreme Court supervision over the State Bar’s Board of Legal Specialization, in order to comply with North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 135 S.Ct. 1101 (2015).

A dissenting letter from attorney and task force member Paul Avelar dated June 11, 2015, is attached as Appendix J to the report, on pages 89 to 113. This letter was originally submitted to the task force in PDF format, with several active hyperlinks to information cited by Mr. Avelar. The PDF version of the letter appeared in the task force’s draft report and has been available on this website since August 22, 2015. However, when the task force’s final report was assembled, the dissenting letter was converted from PDF format into an image format, e.g., TIFF, PNG, JPG, or a similar format. This conversion made the text of the letter a bit blurry and made all of the hyperlinks inoperable. It also increased the file size of the letter from 262 kilobytes to 2.6 megabytes, which is a factor of ten. Therefore, instead of providing a link to this image, we are providing a link to the original PDF, which is a smaller file that is more legible and has active hyperlinks. You will note that some of the hyperlinks in the PDF attempt to access content on the web that has since been removed. However, most of the hyperlinks work and provide the reader with a better understanding of Mr. Avelar’s position. The PDF version of the letter bears page numbers 92 to 116, as in the draft report.

Mr. Avelar’s dissent contends that integrated or mandatory bar associations embody an inherent conflict of interest. On the one hand, they serve to regulate lawyers, but on the other hand, they serve as trade associations promoting the interests of lawyers. This type of conflict was recently a subject of concern in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, supra. In addition, Mr. Avelar contends that integrated bars “threaten the First Amendment rights of attorney members. Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U.S. 1 (1990).” Therefore, Mr. Avelar recommends:

  • Abolishing the integrated State Bar and separating the bar’s regulatory and trade association functions.
  • Making the State Bar a purely regulatory agency that protects the public by regulating lawyers and the practice of law.
  • Abolishing the State Bar’s governing board and allowing the Arizona Supreme Court with a professional staff to supervise the bar’s regulatory function.
  • If the Arizona Supreme Court feels it needs a governing board, it should appoint a small board that represents the public and not lawyers.

Mr. Avelar contends that his recommendations would solve the conflict of interest inherent in an integrated bar, and would protect lawyers’ First Amendment rights.

  • Final Report of Task Force
  • Dissenting Letter of Attorney and Task Force Member Paul Avelar

  • Attorney Search Capability Added to Website

    (Originally posted Monday, August 24, 2015)

    The Association of Sole Practitioners and Small Firms of Arizona has added attorney search capability to its website. This is implemented via an Attorney Search button added to the About and Attorney Members pages. After clicking on this button, you can choose from 69 different practice areas, such as bankruptcy, contracts, family law, real estate, and many more. You can then search for members of the Association who practice law in that area. When the search result comes up, you can click on an attorney’s name to obtain additional information, including in many cases a link to the attorney’s website.

    You can use this new search capability to select a lawyer, or to become familiar with our members and what they do. This new search capability should allow our Association to better serve the public by helping users of our website to find an attorney.

    Draft Report of Task Force on State Bar’s Role and Governance

    (Originally posted Saturday, August 22, 2015)

    The draft report of the task force set up by the Arizona Supreme Court to review the State Bar’s role and governance is available below. Also available is the minority position set forth in the letter of attorney Paul Avelar.

  • Draft Report of Task Force
  • Minority Position—Letter of Paul Avelar, Esq.