The new 7-202.27(B)(2) section should be expanded to preclude a person whose fiduciary license has been suspended or revoked from serving as Personal Representative, guardian, or conservator in any matter in which the subject person is not a related by blood, adoption or marriage. As these are all court appointment proceedings, Arizona Revised Statutes also cover this issue, but having it clearly stated in 7-202.27(B)(2) further enforces the restriction. I do feel that language should be included as to the CLD's ability to further report to the court or otherwise enforce this restriction, should it be discovered at a later date that former license holder is in violation.

Further, any license holder whose license is pending suspension or revocation, regardless of status of appeal, should be required to provide the CLD with a full list of clients, nature of case, and the capacity in which the fiduciary serves, and be subjected to an immediate audit by the CLD or its contracted agent. This will ensure accurate reporting to the superior court and identify matters that may not be under court jurisdiction, but for which a successor fiduciary needs to be assigned. This may require a court matter to be opened or that persons interested in the welfare of the subject person be notified.

Arizona Revised Statutes do not require that all court-appointed fiduciaries, serving as a Personal Representative of a decedent's estate, seek approval of fees. In a decedent estate administration, the beneficiaries/heirs of the estate have the ability to waive formal approval of accountings and fees, with proper informal disclosure of that information being made directly to those individuals. The phrasing of Section 7-202.25(D) appears to require court approval of fees, regardless of any beneficiary/heir waiver, which adds confusion, time, and expense to an estate administration proceedings. I suggest this paragraph be re-phrased to correspond with the A.R.S. allowing waivers by interested persons. I have no issues with the required court approval of fees in guardian and conservator proceedings.

The phrase "fee-generating activity not covered in the appointment order," in 7-202.25(D)(2) is broad and subject to wide interpretation. Further clarification or the inclusion of examples would be helpful.

While understanding the intent of 7-202.19(C), I suggest clarifying that a fiduciary may provide non-fiduciary services for compensation, if there are no alternatives available affordable to the ward, protected person, or estate. For example, a ward may need assistance with a simple daily task or transportation to a doctor appointment, but has limited funds to pay for in-home care or paid transportation services. If the matter is urgent, and other alternatives are not available, a fiduciary should be allowed to have the option of providing assistance to the ward, at a lower compensation rate or for transportation mileage. Otherwise, the ward would be without basic support services, simply because he/she could not afford market industry rates for companion care service. Not all situations are known at the onset of a matter, and to require court approvals for basic need services by the fiduciary, is an expense many wards and protected persons cannot afford. An option to consider would be to include the requirement that the fiduciary either seek court approval for compensated non-fiduciary services, or file proof of disclosure to interested parties of those services and the corresponding cost. This would a cost-effective method of achieving a similar result, and would be time-efficient for all involved and the court.

The creation of 7-202.26(C) is a welcomed addition, but paragraph (D) should be clarified as to who is authorized to file a petition for the appointment of a "conservator of a fiduciary's client files and records." Would this be an authority given to the CLD Fiduciary Board, left up to a party interested in the subject person's or Estate's/Trust's welfare and administration, or given to the court itself? Who could the court consider as an eligible person to demand, collect, and keep the client files and records? Would that person then have a responsibility and the authority to seek the appointment of a successor fiduciary for a specific matter, or to temporarily act as a successor fiduciary? By adding the criteria of "when necessary to protect the public," is highly subjective, and empowers the CLD Fiduciary Board to an extent that is uncomfortable. I admit to not having read the soon to be effective changes to 7-201 in great detail, but regardless of its language, recognize that many members of the Fiduciary Board have never served, shadowed, or have direct knowledge of the daily functions and demands on the fiduciary profession. To empower those individuals with the ability to take such a subjective action based on personal opinion and not upon factual findings, is not appropriate. I suggest re-phrasing 7-202.26(D) to include additional criteria and case findings that must be present, before the board can authorize such an action. Perhaps, it would be best to exclude this specific section until such time as a corresponding Probate Rule is proposed.

Finally, I highly recommend that 7-202.04 be amended to include term limits on Fiduciary Board members. Currently, a board member serves a 3-year term, with the option of renewal. I suggest that the option for renewal be limited to one renewal, for a total of 6 consecutive years on the Board, after which the board member must rotate off the board for a period of at least one 3-year term cycle. This provides other persons and professionals with the opportunity to serve on the Fiduciary Board, and for the public and the regulated license holders, to have fresh ideas and opinions represented on the board.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments and input on the proposed changes to ACJA 7-202. I appreciate the time and hard work of division staff in the drafting and reorganization of this code section.