Make your own free website on

Moses Shepard

3926 North 13 Place

Phoenix, Arizona







of the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court





SUPREME COURT NO. R- _______________




Moses Shepard petitions the Court, pursuant to Rule 28, Ariz. R. S. Ct., to repeal Rules 31-74, Ariz. R. S. Ct., and all other related and/or pertinent authorities, pertaining to the Court’s regulation of the practice of law in Arizona.  This Court is also petitioned to suspend Rule 28 in part by invoking Rule 26, Ariz. R. S. Ct., and Rule 3, ARCAP, by assigning a neutral body composed of individuals, acceptable to all interested parties that wish to comment on this petition because, needless to say, this Court cannot rule on this petition impartially pursuant to the provisions of its code of judicial conduct, Rules 81-82, i.e., Canons 1-5, because each one of its judges is also a member of the Arizona State Bar.

The explanation for the need to repeal Rules 31-74, Ariz. R. S. Ct., and all other related and/or pertinent authorities, are set forth in the accompanying “Memorandum of Points and Authorities.”

The purpose of this proposed rule change is to protect both consumers, and the providers of legal services, from the State Bar of Arizona.


                                                Respectfully submitted this 23rd  day of May, 2002.



                                                                                                Moses Shepard

                                                                                                3926 North 13 Place

Phoenix, Arizona




I.          Rationale.

                The purpose of this petition is to protect both consumers, and the providers of legal services, from the State Bar of Arizona, i.e., the bar.  The bar has alleged that the grounds for amending the rules regarding the practice of law is the  “public harm caused by unauthorized practice of law … in 2001, alone, the State Bar of Arizona received four hundred complaints, alleging that ‘non-lawyers’ were practicing law in Arizona.”[1]  The bar’s petition, however, relies on facts not apparent by the record because it is not supported by affidavit or any other supporting evidence.  As such, its alleged “complaints” should be subjected to careful scrutiny and analysis in order to determine who filed those complaints and the degree to which they are bona fide and/or frivolous complaints.  This is especially so when one considers the fact that, allegedly, a great many more complaints were filed against bar members in the same year.  It is therefore the contention of this petition that the bar has not, and cannot, present any hard evidence to substantiate its claim of harm done to the public by so-called unauthorized practitioners above and beyond any harm done by bar members themselves raising a triable issue of fact.  Indeed, if it can be proven that bar members do greater harm than non-bar members then the ongoing regulation of a mandatory bar serves no purpose and the bar may need to be dissolved.  This is also demonstrated by the fact that 20 % of bar members think that the UPL issue should be left alone.[2]

                Arizona state is a right to work state.  Allegedly, this means that no one can be compelled to be a member of any labor organization in order to work, i.e., get paid for doing so, nor can any individual or entity, such as the State Bar of Arizona, enter into any agreement which facilitates this practice.


II.         Many Notable Authorities, Quoted in Pertinent Part, Support this Petition:

A.           The Arizona Constitution, at Article 25 states:

Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization.  No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization.”


B.            The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Magna Carta for all humanity states:

Article 1 - All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 2 - Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.


Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


Article 3 - Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


Article 7 - All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.


Article 8 - Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.


Article 9 - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.


Article 10 - Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.


Article 12 - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.


Article 17 -  (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.   (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.


Article 20 - (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.  (2)  No one may be compelled to belong to an association.


Article 21 - (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.  (2)  Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.  (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


Article 23 - (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.  (3)  Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.  (4)  Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.


Article 25 - (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.  (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Article 28 - Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.


Article 30 - Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


C.           The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), at Part II, Article 14:

1.  All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (order public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.


2.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.


3.  In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:


(a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; (c) To be tried without undue delay; (d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it; (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.


D.           Extensive legal research done by law professors with juris doctorate degrees and/or bar members supports an end to all mandatory bars throughout the world.  This would of course include Arizona state.  See internet website address: and


III.       Conclusion:

The Court is therefore respectfully requested to repeal Rules 31-74 and, if it will not, to please state its reason why.  Specifically, the petitioner would like to know, 1) both how and why it can grant the bar’s April 30, 2002 petition to change the rules, pertaining to UPL (No. R02-0017), without their presenting any hard evidence of harm done by UPL, and, 2) how it was able to rule impartially when all of its judges belong to the State Bar of Arizona.  Leave is also requested to submit written comment and or to appear before any committee, and/or to reply to any comment submitted by any interested party.

Simply put, if one removes all the opinions in the bar’s petition to change the rules, there would be nothing left, because they offer no evidence of any harm done by non-bar members, or bar members.  A public trial should therefore be held at which harm done by either side can be conclusively proven.  All complaints filed against bar members, and non-bar members alike, should be put to the test of truth.[3]


                                                Respectfully submitted this 23rd  day of May, 2002.



Moses Shepard

                                                                                                3926 North 13 Place

Phoenix, Arizona


Original and six copies filed with the Arizona Supreme Court on this 23rd  day of May, 2002.


By: ___________________________


[1] See In the Matter of Petition to Amend Rule 31, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. and To Add Rule 32 and Rules 76 - 80, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.

[2] See the Consumer Protection Committee Report and Recommendations Approved by the Board of Governors, at page one, paragraph 2, currently posted on the bar’s internet website, at

[3] This does not preclude a standard Rule 9(a), Ariz.R.Civ.P., challenge to standing.