The Arizona Supreme Court implemented the Arizona Lawyer Apprentice Program (ALAP) on September 1, 2024, with generous grant support from the State Justice Institute, creating an alternative pathway to law licensure. ALAP is designed for candidates who narrowly miss Arizona’s Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) passing score of 270, recognizing that a single cut score does not perfectly measure attorney competence and future success. Rather than requiring these candidates to retake the UBE, ALAP allows those scoring between 260 and 269 to practice law under the supervision of an experienced Arizona attorney.
Participants must commit to two years of providing legal services in rural areas or with public law offices statewide and meet all other admission standards. Upon successful completion of the program, an ALAP licensee transitions to a regular license to practice law in Arizona. This innovative program reflects the Court’s commitment to expanding access to justice while offering aspiring attorneys a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their competence.
After one year, ALAP has shown strong engagement with 70 applications received. For the July 2025 UBE, 16 of 44 eligible candidates (36%) have applied, while for the February 2025 UBE, 20 of 36 eligible candidates (56%) have applied. Earlier eligibility periods yielded 19 applications from July 2024 examinees (35%) and 7 applications from July 2023/February 2024 examinees (12%).
To date, 44 ALAP licenses have been issued, with 40 currently active. Three licensees subsequently achieved a UBE score of 270 or higher, and one license expired due to failure to secure qualifying employment. Seventeen ALAP applications remain active. For more information about ALAP you can visit the ALAP website ALAP – Arizona Lawyer Apprentice Program. For information on how to apply, see Arizona Attorney Admissions – Applications & Information.
November 1, 2022
In January 2022, the National Association of Counties, Rulo Strategies, and Praxis Consulting launched a new initiative to support justice-oriented strategic planning co-led by judges and elected county leaders. This timely project leveraged the renewed interest many courts have, coming out of the pandemic, in partnering with local stakeholders to expand the resources available to …
October 1, 2022
In 2020, the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) received a SJI grant to assess the court’s access to and use of mental health and substance use recovery services within the community. Funding allowed the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) to conduct an assessment of strengths, opportunities and challenges that judges, court personnel and …
September 1, 2022
The emergence of COVID-19 has had widespread effects throughout the court system and quarantine orders slowed operations. The Supreme Court of Ohio anticipated an influx of evictions and foreclosure filings in Ohio’s trial courts, as well as a backlog of civil cases. Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor directed the Office of Court Services to convene stakeholders …
August 1, 2022
King County, Washington, was ground zero for the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The Washington State Supreme Court suspended most court operations in all courts on March 18, 2020. Acknowledging access to justice is of critical importance, King County Superior Court (KCSC) leadership vowed to continue to hold matters on all …
July 1, 2022
Juvenile court judges are the most important public figures in the juvenile justice system–their decisions impact whether hundreds of thousands of youth each year become court involved and for how long, whether they are involuntarily removed from their homes and communities, and the services they receive. Despite the importance of these judges, states and locales …
June 1, 2022
Each county in Mississippi contains its own Justice Court where community members bring legal actions to settle local, small-dollar disputes. Court regulations and policies vary in each county, and they can be incredibly confusing for Mississippians to navigate, almost all of which are pro se litigants. The COVID-19 pandemic created more variation as judges and …