Tucson & Phoenix, September 4, 2025 – In a bold move that could reshape legal training across the nation, Arizona is poised to become the first U.S. state to permit individuals without traditional law degrees to represent or prosecute criminal defendants. Under a cutting-edge proposal spearheaded by the Arizona Supreme Court, a new Master of Legal Studies (MLS) Criminal Law Program would empower graduates—after just one year of focused education—to practice criminal law, excluding capital cases.
Program Overview
The initiative, rolled out by the Administrative Office of the Arizona Courts in August, would allow participants to complete:
- Two semesters of criminal law–centric coursework;
- Nine months of supervised practice under a licensed criminal attorney;
- A specialized exam, distinct from the standard bar.
Following successful completion, these MLS graduates would be licensed to handle criminal cases—except those involving the death penalty.
Goals: Bridging the Rural Justice Gap
This proposal aims to tackle two pressing problems plaguing Arizona’s legal system:
- Lawyer shortages in rural communities: Arizona ranks near the bottom for lawyers per capita, leaving many “legal deserts” underserved.
- High cost and duration of conventional J.D. route: A traditional Juris Doctor degree spans three years and can cost upwards of $200,000, making the profession less accessible. The MLS track offers a leaner, faster alternative.
“As we look for solutions, limiting every legal service to traditional J.D. holders isn’t sustainable,” said Dave Byers, Director of the court’s administrative office.
Support and Backlash
Supporters, particularly in under-resourced counties, view the MLS track as a creative fix to long-standing staffing challenges in public defender and prosecution offices.
Skeptics, however, warn of real risks:
- Public defenders argue that lowering entry requirements may diminish the quality of criminal defense. Dean Brault, head of Pima County’s public defender’s office, insists, “If this goes into effect, the public’s perception that defenders aren’t as qualified will be reinforced—and they’ll be right.”
- Legal associations, such as Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, fear that jurisdictions may offer lower defense contracts, expecting MLS graduates to accept reduced compensation levels.
- Constitutional concerns loom large. Critics warn that convictions handled by MLS lawyers could spur appeals alleging inadequate representation, raising potential legal challenges to the program itself.
Laura Conover, Pima County Attorney, sharply criticized the proposal’s double standard: “If my grandmother needs help writing a will, she’d better stick with a fully trained J.D. attorney… But for life-altering criminal charges, we settle for someone less trained? That’s unacceptable.”
Academic Rigor vs. Breadth of Training
Program advocates maintain that MLS students may receive more specialized, in-depth training in criminal law than their J.D. counterparts, who cover a broad spectrum of legal subjects—many unrelated to criminal practice. Courses in constitutional law, contracts, property, and torts, while essential, are not directly relevant to criminal law. The MLS model centers exclusively on evidence, criminal procedure, and related specializations.
Nonetheless, critics argue criminal proceedings involve “life, liberty, and foundational rights”—stakes that warrant the most rigorous training available.
Next Steps and What’s Ahead
The proposal remains under stakeholder review. Arizona’s Supreme Court is expected to refine the program design before making a formal adoption decision, though no timeline has been provided.
If enacted, this could set a national precedent—opening alternative paths into criminal law that better align with evolving needs and resource constraints. Whether the MLS path will deliver on both access and quality remains an open question.
JDJournal Insight: A Turning Point for Legal Licensing?
Arizona’s proposal underscores several systemic challenges:
- Equity and access: Conventional legal training may inadvertently gatekeep rural communities from robust legal representation.
- Flexible education models: Focusing on depth rather than breadth could shorten training while preserving competency in critical areas.
- Safeguarding standards: Balancing expedited licensing with ethical and constitutional integrity remains paramount.
For law students and legal professionals, this development signals a potential shift—one that invites broader discussion about how we train criminal law practitioners, evaluate qualifications, and protect client rights in an era of evolving models.
👉 What do you think? Should Arizona open the courtroom doors to non-J.D. graduates—or does this compromise justice? Share your thoughts with us and join the conversation shaping the future of legal education and criminal defense.
📩 Stay informed with JDJournal—subscribe today for breaking updates on legal industry reforms, career insights, and developments that could redefine the practice of law.
