CON STATEMENT

The proposed rule change would make most lawyers in the Nation eligible for unlimited admission to practice law in Arizona, without being tested on their knowledge of Arizona law, rules or practice.  As a Sunbelt state with the fastest-growing population in the Nation, Arizona will become the perfect target for expansion by large out-of-state firms, including those with substantial advertising budgets, as well as retiring lawyers.

Proponents of this change argue that eliminating Arizona’s bar exam requirement will make Arizona lawyers eligible for admission on motion in other states.  Our Sunbelt neighbors, however—California, New Mexico and Nevada—do not permit admission on motion.  Thus, this proposal will simply not enlarge or improve the practice of most Arizona lawyers.

Moreover, we should not expose Arizona Courts, lawyers or their clients to an influx of lawyers whose commitment to Arizona law is so tenuous that they are unwilling or unable to take or pass the State Bar exam—the only uniform, objective test of a lawyer’s knowledge of Arizona’s substantive and procedural law.  The Character and Fitness Committee does not test this substantive knowledge; nor do five years of practice outside Arizona.  To allow untested lawyers to hold themselves out to the general public as Arizona lawyers will overtax the regulatory capacity of the State Bar and is not likely to serve the best interests of most Arizona consumers, Arizona State Courts or opposing parties.