Does the Pima County Attorney have to provide legal advice to the new Court Administrator and Liaison positions at the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court, or are those state officials whose legal advice comes from the Arizona Attorney General?

Plain-English summary

In 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court restructured how the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court is administered. Two changes mattered for this opinion. First, the court eliminated the old "Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace" role and gave the Presiding Judge of the Pima County Superior Court authority to appoint a "Justice Court Administrator" who reports to the Superior Court's court administrator. Second, the order let the Presiding Judge appoint a "Liaison" (a current or retired Superior Court judge) to serve between the Presiding Judge and the justices of the peace.

Pima County Attorney Laura Conover asked AG Kris Mayes who provides legal advice to those two positions: her office, or the Attorney General's office. Under A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7), the County Attorney advises "county officers." Under A.R.S. § 41-192(A)(1), the Attorney General advises "the departments of this State," including the Superior Court.

The AG concluded that both the Administrator and Liaison are state officials, not county officers. Both are appointed by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The Administrator is explicitly designated a "deputy superior court administrator." The Liaison is a delegate of the Presiding Judge. Both run their authority through the Superior Court (a state department) rather than through the elected justices of the peace (who are county officers under prior precedent and prior AG opinions).

Justices of the peace themselves remain county officers and continue to receive legal advice from the County Attorney. The Administrator and Liaison should direct legal questions to the AG instead.

What this means for you

If you are a county attorney in Arizona

The split between county officer and state judicial department turns on two factors: (1) who appoints the position, and (2) whose authority and direction the position operates under. If both point at the Superior Court (a state department), you do not have to advise that position, and the AG's office does. If both point at justices of the peace or other elected county officials, you do.

In practice, this opinion lets you decline to provide legal advice to a Justice Court Administrator under the post-2020 framework. Be careful when the same individual previously held a different role under the 2013 administrative order: the prior structure ran through the justices of the peace and would have made the Administrator a county officer. The 2020 order changed both factors.

If you are a Justice Court Administrator or Liaison in Pima County

Direct your legal questions to the Arizona Attorney General's office under A.R.S. § 41-192. The Pima County Attorney is no longer your legal counsel under this opinion. If you are unsure who to contact, ask the Court Administrator of the Superior Court, who is your direct supervisor.

If you are a justice of the peace in Pima County

Nothing changes for you. You remain a county officer for purposes of A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7), and the Pima County Attorney continues to be your legal counsel on matters relating to the duties of your office, just as the prior 1987 AG Opinion I87-100 and Collins v. Corbin (1989) established.

If you are a Superior Court presiding judge in another county

The reasoning here applies broadly. If your county adopts a similar administrative restructuring (consolidating justice court administration under your office), the resulting administrative positions will likely be state officials whose legal advice comes from the AG, not the County Attorney. That can simplify some legal-advice arrangements but may also stretch AG resources for routine operational matters.

Common questions

Q: Why does it matter who provides legal advice?
A: Two reasons. First, conflicts of interest: the County Attorney sometimes prosecutes cases in justice court, and you don't want the same lawyer also advising court administration on those cases. Second, expertise: the AG handles statewide judicial-branch matters; the County Attorney handles county-government matters. Sorting positions correctly avoids confusion and conflicts.

Q: Did the 2020 administrative order make the Administrator's job different?
A: Yes, structurally. Under the 2013 order, the Administrator was appointed by a majority of the justices of the peace and reported to a Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace. That meant authority ran through county-officer justices of the peace. Under the 2020 order, authority runs through the Presiding Superior Court Judge and the Court Administrator of the Superior Court. The job description and duties may overlap with the prior role, but the chain of authority is different.

Q: What is the Liaison and why was the position created?
A: The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court can appoint a current or retired judge as Liaison between the Presiding Judge and the Pima County justices of the peace. The Liaison's specific duties are set by the Presiding Judge in a separate administrative order. The position is essentially a delegate or staff officer for the Presiding Judge.

Q: Are constables also county officers?
A: Yes. Justice court constables are county officers, just like justices of the peace, under prior AG Opinion I87-100. They receive legal advice from the County Attorney.

Q: Could the legislature reorganize this in a way that puts the Administrator back under county-officer status?
A: Yes. The Arizona Supreme Court restructured court administration through its administrative orders, but underlying constitutional and statutory authority gives the legislature room to act. If the legislature wanted to put a justice-court administrator under elected justices of the peace by statute, that could change the legal-advice arrangement again.

Background and statutory framework

Arizona's justice court system has historically run on a precinct-by-precinct basis, with each justice of the peace responsible for the administration of his or her own court. As Arizona's metropolitan counties grew, justice courts in larger counties got consolidated for administrative efficiency. Pima County's justice courts have been consolidated since 1974, when Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 1974-01 authorized them to be administered jointly under the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Subsequent administrative orders have refined the structure. Order No. 2013-70 created a "Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace" appointed by the Presiding Judge but operating in coordination with the justices of the peace. The Justice Court Administrator under that order was appointed by a majority of the justices of the peace and served at the direction of the Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace. So the chain ran: Justice Court Administrator → Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace → group of justices of the peace (county officers).

Order No. 2020-189 fundamentally rewrote that. The Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace position was eliminated. The Justice Court Administrator is now appointed by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and is expressly designated a "deputy superior court administrator under the supervision of the court administrator of the superior court." A new Liaison position is created and appointed by the Presiding Judge as a delegate.

A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7) requires the County Attorney to give written legal opinions to county officers on matters relating to the duties of their offices. The threshold question is what counts as a "county officer." The Arizona Supreme Court has held that justices of the peace are county officers because they are local in character, are elected by precinct voters, and operate within county-defined precinct boundaries (Hellman v. Marquardt, 111 Ariz. 95 (1974)). Constables and adult probation officers have been analyzed under similar tests with different results: probation officers, who are appointed by the Presiding Judge and report to a chief probation officer also under the Presiding Judge, were held to be part of the state judicial department in State v. Pima County Adult Probation Department, 147 Ariz. 146 (App. 1985).

The AG applies that Pima County Adult Probation framework to the post-2020 Administrator and Liaison positions. The Administrator is appointed by the Presiding Judge, reports to the Court Administrator (a Superior Court official), and is expressly labeled a deputy superior court administrator. That is the same structure the court of appeals relied on in Pima County Adult Probation. Result: state, not county. The Liaison is even more directly tied to the Presiding Judge, who is unambiguously a state official under Kannarr v. Hardy, 118 Ariz. 224 (1978).

Justices of the peace themselves remain county officers under unchanged precedent. They are still elected by precinct voters within county-defined precinct boundaries, and they still receive legal advice from the County Attorney.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7) (County Attorney duty to advise county officers)
- A.R.S. § 22-103 (Presiding Justice of the Peace)
- A.R.S. § 41-192(A)(1) (Attorney General representation of state departments)

Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Orders:
- Administrative Order No. 1974-01 (creating consolidated administration)
- Administrative Order No. 2005-21 (Justice of the Peace duties)
- Administrative Order No. 2005-22 (Presiding Justice of the Peace duties)
- Administrative Order No. 2013-70 (Pima County administrative structure)
- Administrative Order No. 2020-189 (current Pima County administrative structure)

Cases:
- Hellman v. Marquardt, 111 Ariz. 95 (1974) (justices of the peace as local officers)
- Collins v. Corbin, 160 Ariz. 165 (1989) (County Attorney legal counsel for justices of the peace)
- State v. Pima County Adult Probation Department, 147 Ariz. 146 (App. 1985) (Probation officers as state judicial department personnel)
- Kannarr v. Hardy, 118 Ariz. 224 (1978) (Superior Court judges as state officials)

Prior AG opinion:
- Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I87-100 (justices of the peace and constables as county officers)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i24-012-r23-019
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I24-012.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Laura Conover

Pima County Attorney

Question Presented

Through its Administrative Order No. 2020-189, the Arizona Supreme Court altered the administrative structure of the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court ("Consolidated Justice Court") by (1) authorizing the Presiding Judge of the Pima County Superior Court to appoint a "Justice Court Administrator for the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court" ("Administrator"); (2) designating the Administrator a "deputy superior court administrator;" and (3) authorizing "the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court to designate a judge as a liaison between the Presiding Judge and the justices of the peace of the [Consolidated Justice Court]" (the "Liaison"). Is either the Administrator or Liaison a "county officer" within the meaning of A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7) such that the Pima County Attorney must provide them legal advice?

Summary Answer

No. While the individual justices of the peace are county officers, under the administrative structure adopted by Administrative Order No. 2020-189, neither the Administrator nor the Liaison are appointed by or otherwise subordinate to the justices of the peace of the Consolidated Justice Court. Instead, the Administrator and Liaison are appointed by and subordinate to the Presiding Judge of the Pima County Superior Court and other Superior Court officers. The Administrator and Liaison are not, therefore, county officers to whom the Pima County Attorney must provide legal advice under A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7).

Background

Pima County Justice Courts: 1974 – 2020

In Administrative Order No. 1974-01, the Arizona Supreme Court authorized "the Justice of the Peace Courts in Pima County" to centralize administration of the Tucson-based justices of the peace under the Presiding Judge of the Pima County Superior Court. This unified administrative structure became the Pima County Consolidated Justice.

In 2004, the Legislature adopted A.R.S. § 22-103, which requires justices of the peace in counties with at least two justices to select a presiding and alternate presiding justice of the peace. In response, the Arizona Supreme Court entered two separate Administrative orders to articulate both the "Duties of the Justice of the Peace" and "Duties of the Presiding Justice of the Peace." Administrative Order Nos. 2005-21 and 2005-22. Relevant here, Administrative Order No. 2005-21 required justices of the peace operating at a single, consolidated facility to select one justice of the peace to exercise the administrative and management duties set forth therein, including hiring justice court personnel, initiating disciplinary proceedings, maintaining court records, and preparing budgets. Administrative Order No. 2005-21 at 2. Where justices of the peace were not operating in a consolidated facility, the individual justice of the peace was responsible for exercising these administrative management duties for his or her own court. Id. at 1.

In 2013, acknowledging the "size and complexity of the justice court system in Pima County" and its "unique administrative structure and governance responsibilities," the Arizona Supreme Court adopted Administrative Order No. 2013-70, which supplanted Administrative Order Nos. 2005-21 and 2005-22 for the justice courts in Pima County and created a new governance and administrative structure. Administrative Order No. 2013-70 at 1.

In addition to the setting forth the duties of the "Presiding Justice of the Peace" elected by the justices of the peace pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-103, Administrative Order No. 2013-70 created the role of "Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace of the [Consolidated Justice Court]" who was to be appointed by the Pima County Superior Court's Presiding Judge. Both the Presiding Justice of the Peace and the Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace would "meet periodically" with the Presiding Judge to "discuss justice court issues and needs." Administrative Order No. 2013-70 at 2. The Order also created the role of "Justice Court Administrator" to be appointed by a majority of the justices of the peace of the Consolidated Justice Court but "with the advice and consent of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court." Id. at 6. The Administrator served at the direction of the Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace and was responsible for carrying out most of the Consolidated Justice Court's administrative functions. Id. at 7.

The creation of these two new positions (Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace and Administrator) was apparently necessitated by the possibility that the elected Presiding Justice of the Peace in Pima County may not be a Justice of Peace in the Consolidated Justice Court, allowing for a possible lapse in administrative oversight. See Administrative Order No. 2013-70 at 1. But regardless of which administrative duties were assigned to which role, under Administrative Order No. 2013-70, all administration of the Consolidated Justice Court flowed through a justice of the peace, whether the Presiding Justice of the Peace or the Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace (individually or by virtue of his or her supervision of the Administrator).

Administrative Order No. 2020-189

In 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted Administrative Order No. 2020-189 (the "Order") which again modified the administrative scheme for justice courts in Pima County, citing the need "to clarify and realign duties of the court's leadership positions." Administrative Order No. 2020-189 at 1. The Order generally consolidates the administrative authority which had been spread among a number of positions, and vests that authority with the Presiding Superior Court Judge and Court Administrator of the Superior Court. Specifically, the Order makes three changes which are particularly relevant to our analysis here.

First, the Order entirely eliminated the separate role of "Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace" for the Consolidated Justice Court.

Second, the Order changed the manner by which the Administrator is appointed. Instead of being appointed by a majority of the justices of the peace, the Administrator is now appointed by the Presiding Judge of the Pima County Superior Court ("Presiding Judge"). Id. at 5. The Order expressly provides that the Administrator serves "as a deputy superior court administrator under the supervision of the court administrator of the superior court." Id.

Third, the Order authorizes the Presiding Judge to designate a judge (either a Pima County Superior Court judge or a "retired judge") to serve as a "liaison between the Presiding Judge and the justices of the peace of the [Consolidated Justice Court]." Administrative Order No. 2020-189 at 2. The duties of the Liaison are not set forth in Administrative Order 2020-189. Rather, it directs the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court to "issue an administrative order specifying the authority and responsibilities of the designated liaison." Id.

Analysis

The Attorney General represents "the departments of this [S]tate," including the Arizona Superior Court and its judges. A.R.S. § 41-192(A)(1). A.R.S. § 11-532 provides that the county attorney shall, "[w]hen required, give a written opinion to county officers on matters relating to the duties of their offices." A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7).

Both this Office and the Arizona Supreme Court have had occasion to conclude that justices of the peace are county officers.

This Office has previously opined that "justices of the peace and justice court constables, although part of the integrated judicial department of the state, nevertheless are county officers whom the county attorney is required to advise on matters relating to the duties of those offices." Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I87-100 at 1. In so doing, the Office relied in part on the Arizona Supreme Court's decision in Hellman v. Marquardt, wherein the Court held that the Maricopa County Superior Court was not the appropriate venue for a special action petition against a Yavapai County Justice of the Peace because the justice of the peace position is "local in character" and a "county office." 111 Ariz. 95, 98 (1974). The Arizona Supreme Court later confirmed that the "county attorney is responsible for providing legal advice and representation to justices of the peace so requesting." Collins v. Corbin, 160 Ariz. 165, 167 (1989). As a result, the Pima County Attorney has historically provided legal counsel to the Consolidated Justice Court, along with the justices of the peace and constables.

We now consider whether the Administrator and Liaison are county officers to whom the Pima County Attorney must provide legal advice under A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7). Because both positions are appointed by and subordinate to the Presiding Judge, we conclude they are not county officers.

The Administrator is not a county officer.

Under the prior structure, the Consolidated Justice Court administration ran through the justices of the peace, and the Administrator (1) was appointed by a majority of the justices of the peace and (2) served at the direction of the Chief Administrative Justice of the Peace. Administrative Order No. 2013-70 at 6-7.

Now, Consolidated Justice Court administration is squarely within the Presiding Judge's—and therefore the Superior Court's—domain. See Administrative Order No. 2020-189 at 2 ("[I]t is the responsibility of the presiding Judge of the Superior Court to ensure the effective, efficient administration of the justice courts of Pima County."). The Administrator is a "deputy superior court administrator" and subordinate to the Court Administrator of the Superior Court and, ultimately, the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Administrative Order No. 2020-189 at 5. Because the Administrator's authority flows through Presiding Judge, and not the justices of the peace, the Administrator's role is no longer part of the "county office" in the way it once was. See Hellman, 111 Ariz. at 98.

In concluding that justices of the peace and justice court constables are county officers, this Office distinguished the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Pima County Adult Probation Department, 147 Ariz. 146 (App. 1985). Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I87-100 at *2. There, the court found that Pima County's adult probation officers are part of the judicial department of the State for insurance coverage purposes because (1) "the chief adult probation officer is appointed by the presiding judge of the superior court and is under his direction and control" and (2) all deputy probation officers are appointed by the chief probation officer, with the approval of the presiding judge. Pima Cnty., 147 Ariz. at 148. The Consolidated Justice Court Administrator now bears a similar relationship to the Presiding Judge. Said differently, the Administrator's authority arises from the Superior Court (a department of the State) and not the County. See Hellman, 111 Ariz. at 98.

In sum, under Administrative Order No. 2020-189, the Consolidated Justice Court Administrator performs a Superior Court function, is subordinate to two Superior Court officials, and is expressly designated a "deputy superior court administrator." Accordingly, we conclude that the Administrator is not a "county officer" for purposes of A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7).

The Liaison is not a county officer.

Administrative Order No. 2020-189 permits the Presiding Judge to appoint a current or retired Superior Court judge to serve as the Presiding Judge's Liaison with the Consolidated Justice Court. Administrative Order No. 2020-189 at 2. The Liaison reports to the Presiding Judge and it is the Presiding Judge who is solely responsible for articulating the authority and responsibilities of the Liaison. Id. The Liaison, then, is essentially a delegate of the Presiding Judge on issues pertaining to the Consolidated Justice Court. There is no question that the Presiding Judge, like all superior court judges, is a state official. Kannarr v. Hardy, 118 Ariz. 224, 226 (1978). The Presiding Judge's appointed Liaison must necessarily fall within that state umbrella. Pima Cnty., 147 Ariz. at 148. Thus, the Liaison is not a "county officer" for purposes of A.R.S. § 11-532(A)(7).

Conclusion

Neither the Consolidated Justice Court Administrator nor Liaison are county officers to whom the Pima County Attorney must provide legal advice. The Administrator and Liaison should direct requests for legal advice to this Office.

Kris Mayes

Attorney General

[1] The Justices of the Peace for the Ajo and Green Valley Justice Courts retained administrative control over their precincts. See Administrative Order No. 2020-189 at 1, 4.

[2] We understand that the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court for Pima County has appointed a Liaison, but has not entered an administrative order setting forth the responsibilities of the Liaison position.