venty judgment against me on the basis that there was no taking of my property for personal services as a lawyer and serving being required to serve as an arbitrator under the state mandatory arbitration system and by virtue of the fact that i was not entitled to reimbursement for the out of pocket costs that i would incur as a result of that this is a  brief to the case well i think the key issue here that i would like to address to the court is the court's district court in the defendant's argument that this case should be tested under the regulatory washington legal foundation now for you to prevail here is that just for that i'm certain of your argument and in order for you to prevail do you have to convince us to apply t taking test should apply because of the nature of the property involved however i do think feel that if a regulatory taking is determined to be the proper test to apply that i should still threshold issue here whether regulatory taking and now should apply and that is whether the defendants in particular arizona supreme court has the legal authority jurisdiction under the federal constitution  require attorneys to serve in civil cases where there is no issue of deprivation of liberty by criminal defendant who is behind how do you distinguish dylan i'm sorry how do you defendant may be incarcerated none of that applies here we have no indigent why a seventy one is there a meaningful distinction it seems to me the delmas rooted more in the traditions of the bar and the fact that it's a monopoly industry if you will and it's licensed by the state and one of the conditions of licensure is regulation by the supreme court and supreme courts of various various states require different types of service from from different types of attorneys so why is that in principle any different from requiring pro bono representation well number one i mean it still gets back to a tradition whether as an indigent defendant i e one that has a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel and the traditions going back centuries is that if counsel appointed as a result of that then that is something that is expected of counsel when they become a lawyer this requirement that we have would support a proposition that number one this is a proper regular part of the regulation of attorneys by the arizona supreme court in fact this court has held that whatsoever and again this is in the briefs but makes no mention whatsoever of being required to serve in this type of capacity again we're not we're not given a situation where someone needs counsel in can't afford it this is where the taxpayers could easily pay for supreme court is the regulatory state right they said that this is part of regulation in my argument as it is not part of a regulation it doesn't go to the historical traditional purposes of a supreme on the part of the attorneys and elsewhere we have the same thing and as an attorney i participated in the same thing and found it not to be any demand upon me that i could not easily handle in my practice  attorneys help out in mediation so these are parts of the tradition of the bar it's hard for me to see how in principle it's different from representing and indigent defendant now i understand and that may have a stronger basis in law but the was not aware that there is any state that has a requirement to turn easter without compensation without just compensation in civil matters in addition we have we do have  system in our state that was created with the idea it was created by the legislature for a minute for arbitration it provided for voluntary service attorneys were have never been required to become as a condition licenses every year as part of the process i agree of certain things none of which include this condition right now but if that's going to be important in the dillon case what's an applicant for admission of practice law may be justly deemed to be aware of the traditions of the my estimation when i'm asked to decide you know soft tissue damages and such when i never even tried or represented a client in any direct talks you know what any port matter i specialize in track tax i do side is there anything you want to say after answer but no i think that i think if i understand it and i just looked at it before coming up here yesterday i think it's just trying to create a current record i think the only change that i constitutes a per se taking and we have case law out there that exactly answers the question whether this is a regulatory or per se taking or do you think that this is something that the court needs to address  opinion regardless of how the court rules it may be helpful in the ninth circuit to address it in that united states feet dealing did not specifically did not reach the question of whether arbitrator not similar to the quote permanent physical invasion of property however minor which the supreme court stated and lin deemed to be a person a taking i'm not aware of of any cases that defining services especially services that are required as a regulation  state courts that didn't quite service is as property but in this situation we have a valid regulation by the arizona supreme court that really isn't any different than a the constitutional authority to make attorneys work full time as arbitrators and give up their private practice no your honor i think at that point it would constitute taking more under the bre profitable living and if they had to fight about half of their time to unpaid and service i think there's a very good argument that that would deprive them of that so really you're not saying that this couldn't potentially constitute a taking aren't you just arguing that this particular regulation doesn't constitute an unconstitutional taking the us i don't think there's any doubt that if you said to an attorney well i know you are in the private depriving someone of income it can't be a taking and i think you switch to saying yes there can be a taking but it depends on the circumstances what your position let me clarify what i was saying is that there's not a a taking because service is does not enough itself equal a property interest what the cases have is that your right to practice law your license in practicing law constitutes a property interest and so when a requirement interferes with your ability to make a living and to practice as a lawyer then that is a taking and so those that analysis uses more of the regulatory taking type analysis if there is a substantial interference with with their lawyers ability to practice law then there can be a taking just as a practical question that determination by the communities and the bar who put together this rule is that there there is sufficient expertise in anyone that has a another area take courses in another area that's correct your honor so just to just to make sure i have a complete picture you know you have these requirements you have clear requirements you have arbitration requirements something other requirements of service set by the court at a certain rate and i don't know that it's equivalent to what a private attorney would tell but there is the public defender's office and then there's the ability for the court to appoint and there's a statute that requires payment if that i wanted to just quickly address a couple questions were asked here in arizona in order to be board certified as a specialist in any area of practice including tax you're required to take at least twelve hours of your fifteen hour a year requirement in at specific area i have to take twelve hours at least of tax and then another three hours of ethics as true in that pursuit occasion or some other sort of occasion state it's not that i can or  can't it's that's the requirement it's not to say i couldn't take more hours over the fifteen hours that's just not provided and the hours you take in continuing legal education otherwise you might spend in billable activities different matter because it's protecting the public i hope perfectly to protect the public but if you are not taking that you might be doing billable hours your honor i don't object to a continual legal education is for the purpose of keeping attorneys up to speed at least in some manner to protect the public so the fact that you can do a certain degree be deprived of accumulating all the bilbo hours that you want to it's not the objection you have here and that is so i believe that attorneys any under per se taking of out of pocket costs are entitled for payment of those out of pocket costs you aren't in this in the state of arizona and i believe philip and brown applies of per se taking here services this doesn't relate real estate this is private property i spent many years and tens of thousands of dollars in getting to a point where i'm qualified and then in the state of