Smith, Matter of, SB-95-0022-D
| Citation | 939 P.2d 422,189 Ariz. 144 |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. SB-95-0022-D,SB-95-0022-D |
| Parties | , 245 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 27 In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Lawrence B. SMITH, Respondent. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
On April 19, 1995, the State Bar filed a motion asking this court to summarily suspend Lawrence B. Smith (Respondent) for failure to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) requirements of Rule 45, Rules of the Supreme Court, for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 educational years. In accordance with Rule 45(h), the State Bar sent a notice of non-compliance to Respondent more than thirty days before filing its motion.
Respondent first contested the efforts to suspend him by filing a complaint in United States District Court alleging, among other things, that this court lacked authority to impose MCLE requirements, that summary suspension would violate his rights to due process, and that the failure to provide a hearing deprived him of his equal protection rights. The district judge dismissed the action under the abstention doctrine, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling by Memorandum. See Smith v. Feldman, No. 96-15350, 1996 WL 552772 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 1996).
Our consideration of the State Bar's motion was suspended until the federal court case was concluded. Respondent then filed his response to the motion, making the following arguments:
A. Imposition of MCLE requirements is a legislative rather than judicial function.
B. Requiring Respondent to satisfy MCLE requirements deprived him of due process of law.
C. The State Bar Board of Governors' procedures deprived Respondent of procedural due process and equal protection of the laws.
Arguing that this court lacks the authority to impose mandatory continuing legal education requirements, Respondent contends that creating and imposing such requirements is a legislative act that transcends the court's judicial authority. We disagree.
Article III of the Arizona Constitution creates the judicial branch of government, separate and distinct from the other branches. The State Bar exists only by virtue of this court's rules, adopted under authority of article III and article VI, §§ 1 and 5 of the Arizona Constitution. Thus, Rule 31(a)(1) provides that this court may "perpetuate, create and continue" the State Bar under its "direction and control." Rule 31(a)(3) prohibits any person from practicing law in this state "unless he is an active member of the state bar" and sets the requirements for continuing as an active member in good standing. Among these is the MCLE requirement of Rule 45.
We do not believe these rules transcend the court's judicial authority. This court has long recognized that under article III of the Constitution Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit Sys. Comm'n, 127 Ariz. 259, 261-62, 619 P.2d 1036, 1038-39 (1980) (citations omitted). We conclude, therefore, that Respondent cannot prevail on his separation of powers argument.
Respondent argues that imposition of MCLE requirements violates due process of law. But such requirements, we believe, are rationally related to this court's obligation to serve the public interest. We must ensure, insofar as possible, that those competent when admitted to practice retain that competency while continuing in practice. See Verner v. Colorado, 533 F.Supp. 1109 (D.Colo.1982), aff'd, 716 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir.1983).
Respondent also argues that his due process rights were violated because the rules and regulations applicable to MCLE do not provide a procedure to avoid summary suspension for lawyers who, for excusable reasons, fail to comply. To the contrary, Rule 45(h) provides that the State Bar must send a notice of non-compliance at least thirty days before it files a motion seeking summary suspension. The lawyer may then comply by filing an affidavit of delinquent compliance pursuant to Rule 45(d). No showing is required and nothing need be done except file the affidavit and pay the delinquent fee. See Rule 45(d)(1). Respondent was given this opportunity. In fact, Respondent was sent several notices of his non-compliance; each notice provided an opportunity to correct the non-compliance. The rules also provide a lawyer the opportunity for reinstatement subsequent to any suspension. See Rules 45(h) and 71(b).
Respondent alleges that the MCLE rules violate due process because they provide no opportunity to be excused from compliance when or if in ill health. Again he is mistaken. On a showing of undue hardship, Rule 45(b)(6) provides relief by way of exemption or extension. But Respondent did not avail himself of the opportunity for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warden v. State Bar of California
... ... the wisdom of some or all of the exemptions from the MCLE program may be questioned as a matter of policy, the challenged exemptions may not be found unconstitutional under a proper understanding ... Colorado have no rational connection to a lawyer's suitability to practice law."]; Matter of Smith (1997) 189 Ariz. 144, 939 P.2d 422, 424 [upholding Arizona's MCLE requirements].) Because ... ...
-
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court
... ... the plain language of the statute, "we consider the statute's context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose." Id. We ... court as provided in article VI sections 1 and 5(4) of the Arizona Constitution."); In re Smith, 189 Ariz. 144, 146, 939 P.2d 422, 424 (1997) ("The State Bar exists only by virtue of this ... ...
-
Spears v. Stewart
... ... A judge of the court requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in ... Horn, 161 F.Supp.2d 452, 478 n. 11 (E.D.Pa.2001) (Pennsylvania has not opted-in); Smith v. Anderson, 104 F.Supp.2d 773, 786 (S.D.Ohio 2000) (Ohio has not opted-in); Oken v. Nuth, 30 ... ...
- Hancock v. O'Neil
-
THE PARTNERSHIP MYSTIQUE: LAW FIRM FINANCE AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY AMERICAN LAW FIRM.
...67, 88 (jurisdiction). (221.) ARIZ. CONST, art. VI, [section] 1. (222.) In re Creasy, 12 P.3d 214, 216 (Ariz. 2000) (quoting In re Smith, 939 P.2d 422, 424 (Ariz. (223.) Id. at 217 (quoting State Bar of Ariz. v. Ariz. Land Title & Tr. Co., 366 P.2d 1, 14 (Ariz. 1961)). (224.) ARIZ. SUP.......