g) Comment to R-15-0015, Petition to
Amend the Rules of Procedure for
Amend Rule 23, ARIZ.R.CIV.P.
i) Comment to R-15-0013, Petition to
Amend Rule 44, ARIZ.R.P.JUV.CT.
j) Comment to R-15-0011, Petition to
Amend Rules 15. 5 and 39,
k) Comment to R-15-0005, Petition to
Amend Rule 7. 5, ARIZ.R.CRIM.P.
l) Comment to R-15-0026, Petition to
Amend Rule 41, ARIZ.R.CRIM.P.
m) Comment to R-15-0010, Petition to
n)Comment to R-15-0016, Petition to
Amend Rule 6(E)( 4)(E)( 2),
o)Comment to R-15-0022, Petition to
Amend Rule 38(d), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
p) Comment to R-15-0003, Petition to
Amend Rule 32(c)( 9), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
q)Comment to R-14-0028, Petition to
Amend Rule 45, ARIZ.R.S.CT.
r) CCCF Committee-IOLTA Participation
3Finance and Audit Committee—Dave
3Investment Policy – returns as originally
presented to the Board for a vote.
3 Motion: Coming as a motion from the
committee, the board voted unanimously
to approve the Investment Policy as
3Q- 1 2015 Financials: The Bar is on track
and ahead of the five-year plan: $600,000
surplus and expected budgeted amount of
$421,000; $200,000 above projected
surplus to date. Expenses are down. Late
payments were expected to drop but they
haven’t and are higher than anticipated.
32014 Combined Audit of State Bar of
Arizona and Client Protection Fund:
3Audits completed. Clean audits and
copies of the letters provided to the
3Discussion regarding employee’s contributions to the Bar’s non-qualified 401(k)
plan – considered Bar assets and must
be listed in financials. Board discussed
if there were options that could protect
3Auditors complimented staff on their
3 Communications Policy—Rick DeBruhl:
3 The Communications Advisory Committee
met twice to discuss the policy regarding
Communications Access to Members. The
current policy prohibits, with some excep-
tions, the right to advertise non-Bar CLE
on section listservs. A few of the reasons for
not promoting non-Bar CLE as presented
by Lisa Deane are: ( 1) It would diminish
the value of the online communities, which
are meant to be areas for discussion of legal
issues, referrals, and references. We don’t want
to see members flooded with CLE advertise-
ments; ( 2) it potentially conflicts with existing
CLE or Section programs and increases
calls to staff, which is an inefficient use of
resources; ( 3) it compromises the Bar’s brand
and gives the impression that a program has
the Bar’s seal of approval; and ( 4) it raises
concerns with Keller issues because a program
might relate to a political topic.
3 The Communications Advisory Committee
recommended that the board maintain the
3 The board took no action on this matter.
3CLE Task Force Report:
3Robert Copple, ADR Section past chair,
joined the meeting and reported that he
had chaired one of the Task Force’s three
Subgroups charged with studying ways to
increase collaborative CLE efforts between
the Sections and the CLE Department. This
was the model in the 1970s.
3 The Subgroup recommended the creation of
a CLE Curriculum Committee and a unified
calendar. It also recommended the creation
of a centralized system for the delivery of all
CLE programs with the CLE Department
overseeing all programs, paying all costs and
receiving all associated revenue.
3 Motion: Jim Smith moved and Dee-Dee
Samet seconded the motion to table.
Vote: Motion failed.
3 Motion: Lisa Loo moved to accept the Task
Force Committee’s recommendation. The
motion failed due to the lack of a second.
3 Motion: Dee-Dee Samet moved, Sam Saks
seconded and the motion carried to reject
proposal #3, create a centralized system for
the delivery of all Bar CLE programs.
3 Motion: Dee-Dee Samet moved and Jim
Smith seconded the motion to reject proposal
#1 (Curriculum Committee). The motion
failed by a vote of 6 to 8.
3 Motion: Sam Saks moved, Dave Derickson
seconded and the motion passed to form an
Exploratory Curriculum Committee for one
3 Motion: David Derickson moved, Bryan
Chambers seconded and the motion carried
to explore the creation of a unified calendar
3Program Review Committee—Whitney
3 The PRC, with input from the Board of Legal
Specialization, recently completed its review of
the BLS program, which included reviewing
the areas of specialty offered in Arizona and
comparing the areas and criteria for specializations with other jurisdictions, and evaluating
the BLS Rules and Regulations as created by
the Board of Governors. The PRC and BLS
focused on the following: ( 1) A discussion
regarding the Bar’s BLS program in light of
the new U.S. Supreme Court decision North
Save Money and Time
by Using an Arbitrator
You can access the
Arizona Attorney Magazine
and click on the
ADR & Mediation Guide link
To be included in the next Guide
call 602-340-7306 or email