Court Opinion

ID: 9795823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:39:25.052816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:38:04.485841
License: Public Domain

OPINION

ECKERSTROM, J.
¶ 1 In these consolidated special actions, we are asked to determine whether an attorney who has filed a notice of change of judge pursuant to Rule 10.2, Ariz.R.Crim. P., 16A A.R.S., and who has therein avowed that the notice was not being filed for any improper purpose may be ordered to divulge his or her reasons for seeking a change of judge. We conclude that compelling counsel to divulge the reasons for filing a notice in accordance with Rule 10.2 is contrary both to the rule’s express terms and its intent. For that reason, we further conclude that respondents, Judges O’Neil and Campbell, proceeded in excess of them jurisdiction and legal authority when they failed to immediately reassign the underlying actions as required by the express terms of that rule.
BACKGROUND
A. The Rule.
¶ 2 Rule 10.2 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
a. Entitlement. In any death penalty case, any party shall be entitled to request a change of judge as a matter of right no later than ten (10) days after the state files a notice of intention to seek the death penalty. In any criminal ease other than a death penalty case, each side is entitled as a matter of right to a change of judge. Each such non-death penalty case, whether single or consolidated, shall be treated as having only two sides: provided that, whenever two or more parties on a side have adverse or hostile interests, the presiding judge or that judge’s designee may allow additional changes of judge as a matter of right.
b. Procedure. A party may exercise his or her right to a change of judge by filing a pleading entitled “Notice of Change of *644Judge” signed by counsel, if any, stating the name of the judge to be changed. The notice shall also include an avowal that the request is made in good faith and not:
1. For the purpose of delay;
2. To obtain a severance;
3. To interfere with the reasonable case management practices of a judge;
4. To remove a judge for reasons of race, gender or religious affiliation;
5. For the purpose of using the rule against a particular judge in a blanket fashion by a prosecuting agency, defender group or law firm (State v. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. 99, 722 P.2d 267 (1986));
6. To obtain a more convenient geographical location; or
7. To obtain advantage or avoid disadvantage in connection with a plea bargain or at sentencing, except as permitted under Rule 17.4(g).
The avowal shall be made in the attorney’s capacity as an officer of the court.
d. At the time of the filing of a notice of change of judge, the parties shall inform the court in writing if they have agreed upon a judge or judges who are available and are vil ling to have the action assigned to that judge. An agreement of all parties upon such judge may be honored and, if so, shall preclude further changes of judge as a matter of right unless the agreed judge becomes unavailable. If no judge has been agreed upon, then the presiding judge shall immediately reassign the action.
¶3 Effective July 1, 2001, the supreme court added the mandatory avowals in Rule 10.2(b) on an experimental basis to address the perception that the rule was being abused. Ariz. R.Crim. P. 10.2 cmt. Although the amendments were to remain in effect until June 30, 2002, the supreme court has twice extended them. Ariz. Sup.Ct. Order (June 9, 2003) (extending amendments to January 23, 2004).
B. The Special Actions.
¶ 4 These special actions arose out of criminal proceedings in Pinal County Superior Court and involve nine different defendants in ten cases. In State v. Lewis, CR 20026792, petitioner Bradley Soos, Deputy Pinal County Attorney, filed a notice of change of judge seeking to remove Pinal County Superior Court Judge Gilberto V. Figueroa from the case pursuant to Rule 10.2. Finding that it appeared the office of the Pinal County Attorney had “repetitively” filed such notices as to Judge Figueroa, respondent Judge O’Neil, the Presiding Judge of Pinal County Superior Court, assigned the matter to respondent Judge Campbell, the Presiding Judge of Maricopa County, for the purpose of “reviewing” the notice. In forwarding the notice to Judge Campbell, Judge O’Neil noted that Soos had filed notices as to Judge Figueroa in four other cases between January 13 and March 31, 2003.
¶ 5 On April 23, Judge Campbell ordered Soos to appear before him on May 2 to “provide a reason and explanation as to why a Notice of Change of Judge was filed by him” in the underlying action. Soos filed a motion to vacate the April order and the May 2 hearing, asking that the ease be assigned to a new judge. Alternatively, Soos asked Judge Campbell to stay the May 2 hearing so Soos and the State of Arizona could seek special action relief in this court. Soos attached to that motion the affidavit of Robert Carter Olson, the Pinal County Attorney, in which Olson stated that his office did not “have a practice of filing a notice of change of judge pursuant to Rule 10.2 against a particular judge in a blanket fashion.” He also stated that his deputy county attorneys are authorized to file notices “in good faith and not for any improper purpose.”
¶ 6 On April 16, petitioner Bret H. Huggins of the Pinal County Public Defender’s office filed a notice of change of judge in State v. Myers, CR 200300463, seeking to remove respondent Judge O’Neil from that case. Similarly, on April 24, petitioner Raymond Beck of the Pinal County Public Defender’s office filed a notice of change of judge in State v. Newsome, CR 200300419, and in another case involving the same defendant, CR 200300326, seeking to remove Judge O’Neil. And, on April 16, petitioner Jennifer L. Bergeron, also of the Pinal County Public Defender’s office, filed a similar *645notice in State v. Perez, CR 200300475. Judge O’Neil referred these matters to Judge Campbell, who ordered Huggins, Beck, and Bergeron to appear before him on May 2 for the same reason he had ordered Soos to appear before him: to explain the reasons for filing the Rule 10.2 notices and to ensure the notices had not been filed for an improper purpose. Huggins filed a motion to quash the order requiring his appearance, a request to expedite a hearing on the motion to quash, and a motion to stay the May 2 hearing indefinitely or, alternatively, for a brief stay so he could seek a stay in this court.
¶ 7 Judge Campbell consolidated these and other cases involving similar notices for the limited purpose of considering the notices. Petitioners and their attorneys participated in a May 1 telephonic hearing before Judge Campbell addressing the propriety of proceeding with the May 2 hearing. Petitioners argued that the orders that compelled them to explain their reasons for having filed the notices were contrary to the intent of Rule 10.2. They asserted that, once proper notices had been filed, Judge O’Neil was required to reassign the cases.
¶ 8 Judge Campbell disagreed. He analogized the right to a change of judge under Rule 10.2 to the right to peremptorily strike a juror. Judge Campbell reasoned that, just as Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and its progeny require counsel to explain why they struck a juror in determining whether the strike was based on race or gender, such an inquiry should be permitted to determine the propriety of counsel’s utilization of Rule 10.2 to remove a judge from a case. Judge Campbell further concluded that the “[c]ourt has the inherent authority to review a Rule 10.2 Notice for impropriety” and that “[t]he Rule itself contemplates that there will be judicial review of a notice.” Judge Campbell then stayed the May 2 hearing until May 16.
¶ 9 Soos, Bergeron, Huggins, and Beck filed petitions for special action challenging the orders entered by Judges O’Neil and Campbell. We consolidated the petitions and granted petitioners’ request for a stay of the May 16 hearing. Petitioners David W. Gregan, Mario Urrutia, and Lawton Connelly, attorneys practicing in the office of Gregan & Associates, requested and were permitted to join in the special actions. These petitioners had filed notices seeking to remove Judge O’Neil in State v. Duvall, CR 200300199, State v. Farnsworth CR 200300512, and State v. Stevens, CR 200300368. And, like the other petitioners, they had been ordered to appear on May 2 to explain them reasons for using Rule 10.2 to remove Judge O’Neil.
¶ 10 Meanwhile, on April 29, Beck filed two additional notices of change of judge in State v. Garcia Berreras, CR 200300563, and State v. Salas, CR 200300387, seeking to remove Judge O’Neil. Judge O’Neil referred these cases to Judge Campbell, who ordered Beck to appear on May 30 to explain his reasons for filing the Rule 10.2 notices. Beck filed a petition for special action, which we consolidated with the other three petitions; we also granted Beck’s request for a stay of the hearing before Judge Campbell.
SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION
¶ 11 Petitioners contend they have no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by appeal. See Ariz. R.P. Special Actions 1(a), 17B A.R.S. We agree. As petitioners correctly note, and the respondent judges concede, appellate challenges relating to a peremptory request for a change of judge are appropriately reviewed by special action. Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 186 Ariz. 221, 223, 921 P.2d 21, 23 (1996) (appellate review of denial of notice of change of judge filed pur.suant to Rule 42(f)(1), Ariz. R. Civ. P., 16 A.R.S., Pt.1, must be obtained by special action); Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee, 196 Ariz. 344, ¶ 5, 996 P.2d 1248, ¶ 5 (App.2000) (finding special action review appropriate to determine whether party entitled to peremptory removal of judge under Rule 42(f), Ariz. R. Civ. P., when request made after remand from appellate court and party had exercised peremptory removal of judge before appeal); Fiveash v. Superior Court, 156 Ariz. 422, 423, 752 P.2d 511, 512 (App.1988) (special action proper means for seeking appellate review to determine whether defendant, whose plea agreement trial court had rejected and who had been granted change of *646judge pursuant to Rule 17.4(g), Ariz. R.Crim. P., 17 A.R.S., entitled to peremptory change of judge under Rule 10.2, Ariz. R.Crim. P., as to judge subsequently assigned to case).
¶ 12 Moreover, the issues raised in the special actions require us to determine the meaning and correct application of Rule 10.2, a legal question of statewide importance to the judiciary and the litigants who come before it on criminal matters. Brush Wellman, 196 Ariz. 344, ¶ 5, 996 P.2d 1248, ¶ 5; see also City of Tucson v. Superior Court, 167 Ariz. 513, 513, 809 P.2d 428, 428 (1991) (finding acceptance of special action jurisdiction appropriate when “issue presented is a pure issue of law that is of statewide significance”). In addition, the litigants present us with an issue of first impression. See Blake v. Schwartz, 202 Ariz. 120, ¶ 7, 42 P.3d 6, ¶ 7 (App.2002); State ex rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage, 200 Ariz. 582, ¶ 8, 30 P.3d 649, ¶ 8 (App.2001) (acceptance of special action jurisdiction appropriate “in cases involving a matter of first impression, statewide significance, or pure questions of law”). Accordingly, we accept jurisdiction of these special actions.
DISCUSSION
¶ 13 Petitioners assert that no language in Rule 10.2, or in any other rule or statute, authorizes a judge to question a litigant about the basis for seeking a change of judge once a proper notice has been filed in full compliance with Rule 10.2(b). Petitioners maintain that Rule 10.2(d) expressly requires presiding judges to “immediately reassign” cases upon receipt of notices that comply fully with the rule.
¶ 14 By contrast, the respondent judges insist that they possess the authority to question counsel based on what they characterize as the “long recognized,” “inherent power” “every court has ... to do what it deems necessary for the efficient exercise of its jurisdiction.”1 In this vein, the respondent judges suggest that the decision to question counsel in these cases was justified by “repetitive and excessive notices” as to Judges O’Neil and Figueroa. In them view, this pattern “had the outward appearance of violating Rule 10.2’s prohibitions.” The judges maintain that the experimental amendments of Rule 10.2, as well as the comments to that rule, and Ethical Rule 8.4(g), Ariz. R. Prof'l Conduct, Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. 42, 17A A.R.S., contemplate such an inquiry.
¶ 15 We find that the clear language of Rule 10.2, its purpose, its history, and the case law addressing it all reflect a deliberate intent by the supreme court to retain a litigant’s right to an automatic change of judge. In this light, we cannot authorize a procedure that constructively amends the rule by conditioning the exercise of that right on a potential judicial inquiry into the litigant’s reasons for seeking a change of judge.
¶ 16 In determining the meaning of a rule promulgated by the supreme court, “we apply principles of statutory construction.” State v. Baca, 187 Ariz. 61, 63, 926 P.2d 528, 530 (App.1996). Consequently, “[o]ur primary objective is to discern and give effect to the intent of ... our supreme court in promulgating [the rule].” Vega v. Sullivan, 199 Ariz. 504, ¶ 8, 19 P.3d 645, ¶ 8 (App.2001). “[W]e focus on the language of the ... rule and, if it is inconclusive or ambiguous, we then consider other factors such as [its] context, subject matter, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.” Id.
¶ 17 Each party “is entitled as a matter of right to a change of judge.” Ariz. R.Crim. P. 10.2(a) (emphasis added). Once a party or counsel has filed a notice in compliance with the rule, “the presiding judge-shall immediately reassign the action” unless the parties agree upon a judge. Ariz. R.Crim. P. 10.2(d) (emphasis added). In an opinion issued after the 2001 amendments, the supreme court reiterated the continuing force of these provisions: “Rule 10.2 entitles either party in a criminal case to a change of judge as a matter of right---- A court cannot disregard a timely notice of a change of judge.” Godoy v. Hantman, 205 Ariz. 104, ¶ 6, 67 P.3d 700, ¶ 6 (2003) (citation omitted). Thus, the mandatory language of Rule 10.2 *647itself contradicts any claim that a court may exercise its own discretion in deciding whether to make the required reassignment. Nor does any other provision of the rule permit a judge to question counsel about the veracity of his or her avowal before honoring the notice and assigning the case to a different judge.
¶ 18 Although Rule 10.2 is so clear on its face that we need not look to its history, context, spirit, or purpose to construe it, our interpretation of Rule 10.2 is only reinforced by that exercise. “Amona is in the minority of states that permit peremptory changes of judge in criminal proceedings.” Fiveash, 156 Ariz. at 425, 752 P.2d at 514; see also 5 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 22.4(d) (2d ed.1999). In eases pre-dating the 2001 amendments, our supreme court and this court have acknowledged and defended the mandatory, automatic nature of Rule 10.2.
¶ 19 In State v. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. 99, 722 P.2d 267 (1986), our supreme court held that the chief magistrate of a city court lacked the authority to require city prosecutors to avow they had filed their notices in good faith. Although the magistrate in question had good reason to suspect an abuse of the rule,2 the court reminded the parties that
Rule 10.2 permits a party to disqualify a judge for no cause or reason. Under Rule 10.2, a party may exercise his right to a change of judge merely by filing a pleading entitled “Notice of Change of Judge.” No allegation of bias or prejudice is required by Rule 10.2.
Id. at 102, 722 P.2d at 270. The court added that, “[o]nce the Notice of Change of Judge has been filed, the procedure under Rule 10.2 is summary and automatic.” Id.; see also State v. Keel, 137 Ariz. 532, 534, 672 P.2d 197, 199 (App.1983).
¶20 In State v. Greenlee County Justice Court, Precinct 2, 157 Ariz. 270, 756 P.2d 939 (App.1988), we relied on City Court of Tucson and held that the superior court did not have authority to require prosecutors to make avowals of good faith when they filed a peremptory challenge to a justice of the peace. There, we concluded that, once a proper notice had been filed pursuant to Rule 10.2, the justice of the peace had been required to transfer the case to a new judge and had exceeded his legal authority by failing to do so. Greenlee County Justice Court, 157 Ariz. at 273, 756 P.2d at 942; see also State v. Neil, 102 Ariz. 110, 112-13, 425 P.2d 842, 844-45 (1967) (filing of notice of change of judge required trial court to transfer case to another judge); State v. Shahan, 17 Ariz. App. 148, 149, 495 P.2d 1355, 1356 (1972) (litigant has peremptory right to disqualify judge, and if notice is timely, ease must be transferred to another judge).
¶ 21 Nor can the later 2001 amendments to Rule 10.2 be interpreted as a renewed invitation for trial courts to engraft their own preconditions on the operation of the rule. Although the supreme court did adopt the 2001 amendments to address a perceived abuse of the rule, see Rule 10.2 emt., those amendments constituted the supreme court’s best judgment at the conclusion of a vigorous debate on whether the rale should be abolished altogether.3 In light of *648this debate, the supreme court installed the avowal procedure set forth in Rule 10.2(b), a specific mechanism for requiring attorneys to demonstrate that they have not abused the rule. It also articulated a remedy if attorneys violate the rule notwithstanding facial compliance with the avowal procedure, potential punishment through the state bar disciplinary process. Ariz. R.Crim. P. 10.2 cmt. to 2001 amendments; ER 8.4(g), Ariz. R. Profl Conduct.4 Given that the supreme court received the benefit of extensive debate and thereafter so carefully set forth the remedies for potential abuse of the rule, we cannot conclude that the 2001 amendments implicitly permit superior courts to supplement those amendments with remedies of then* own design.
¶22 In fact, the mechanism respondents utilized here — requiring a hearing set before another judge in which the litigant must explain the grounds for filing the notice — is the same species of procedure set forth in Rule 10.1 to address a motion for a change of judge for cause. See Ariz. R.Crim. P. 10.1(b) and (c). If the supreme court had intended to apply such a procedural remedy for potential abuse of Rule 10.2, it was certainly aware of that potential procedural remedy and could have imposed it in the 2001 amendments.
¶23 Moreover, respondents’ orders directly contradict the purpose of Rule 10.2 as described by the supreme court and articulated by case law. In its comment to the 2001 amendments, the supreme court observed: “Rule 10.2 is intended to ensure a party’s right to have a matter heard before a fail' and impartial judge without the necessity of divulging details that could cause needless embarrassment and antagonism or showing actual bias which may be difficult to prove.” (Emphasis added.) Therein, the supreme court cited with approval our opinion in Anonymous v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Pima, 14 Ariz.App. 502, 484 P.2d 655 (1971). In that case, we observed:
While other states require that the affidavit of bias and prejudice set forth the facts upon which the allegation of bias and prejudice is based ..., Arizona has the salutary rule making disqualification automatic. Thus, in this state it is not necessary to embarrass the judge by setting forth in detail the facts of bias, prejudice or interests which may disqualify him nor is it necessary for judge, litigant and attorney to involve themselves in an imbroglio which might result in everlasting bitterness on the part of the judge and the lawyer.
Id. at 504, 484 P.2d at 657. In short, the perceived policy benefits of Rule 10.2 depend on a mechanism by which litigants may remove a judge without explaining their basis for doing so. Rule 10.2 was specifically designed to provide such a mechanism. For this reason, the procedure respondents ordered in this case — requiring petitioners to explain them basis for a change of judge— undermines the very purpose of the rule and the chief mechanism by which it operates. In approving the 2001 amendments, the supreme court could not have intended the superior courts to employ a procedural remedy for suspected abuse that so directly contradicts the purpose of the rule.5
¶ 24 As noted, respondent judges contend that courts have “inherent power to do what [they] deem[] necessary for the efficient exercise of their jurisdiction.” They assert this power includes the authority to *649question petitioners because it appeared petitioners were violating the rule. Respondents point to statistics on the number of times petitioners used the rule to remove Judges O’Neil and Figueroa during a specific period, insisting that the numbers “amounted to prima facie evidence of a rule violation ... [and that Judge O’Neil] thus properly invoked the court’s inherent power to make further inquiries to determine whether a rule violation had, in fact, been committed.” The respondent judges rely on A.R.S. § 12-122, which states that “[t]he superior court, in addition to the powers conferred by constitution, rule or statute, may proceed according to the common law.” The respondent judges maintain that the statute recognizes the court’s inherent powers and argue that, “[o]nce a court has jurisdiction over a matter, it may exercise its inherent powers for the ordinary and efficient exercise of that jurisdiction.”
¶ 25 Fh*st, the statistics submitted to us do not present a compelling basis for suspecting that petitioners had been abusing the rule. Those statistics demonstrate only that each petitioner had filed repeated notices against a particular judge. Those statistics tell us nothing about whether the grounds for those exercises were proper. If a particular attorney possessed a permissible reason under Rule 10.2 for using a “peremptory strike,” that concern might well reemerge each time the attorney had a ease assigned to the same judge.
¶26 Second, a “blanket” use of the rule against a particular judge does not constitute an abuse unless it is conducted by a “prosecuting agency, defender group or law firm.” Ariz. R.Crim. P. 10.2(b)(4), citing City Court of Tucson. A blanket challenge occurs when chief prosecutors or public defenders instruct their deputies to disqualify a certain disfavored judge in all criminal cases of a particular nature. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. at 102, 722 P.2d at 270; see also People v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.App.4th 688, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 873, 874 n. 1 (1992). Nothing in the rule prohibits individual attorneys who work for an agency or firm from exercising their individual discretion to repeatedly file Rule 10.2 notices naming a particular judge. In his affidavit, the Pinal County Attorney denied that his office has a “blanket” policy of disqualifying any one particular judge. In fact, none of the petitioners here moved to strike the same judge on every occasion.6 Additionally, we find no evidence in the record before us that supports respondents’ contention that petitioner Soos’s notices against Judge Figueroa were “based on race or filed in a blanket fashion” or that the use of the rale to remove Judge O’Neil was for the purpose of interfering with his “reasonable case management practices, or to avoid the Judge’s lawful (although possibly perceived as harsher) sentencing practices.” On the record before us, respondents offer nothing more than speculation about petitioners’ motives for repeatedly striking particular judges.
¶27 Nor are we persuaded by respondents’ argument that they possess inherent authority to issue the orders in question. Although it may be trae as a general proposition that trial courts have inherent authority to enter orders that facilitate the orderly and efficient execution of them jurisdiction, see Owen v. City Court, 123 Ariz. 267, 268, 599 P.2d 223, 224 (1979), and Fenton v. Howard, 118 Ariz. 119, 121, 575 P.2d 318, 320 (1978), the supreme court has been given the exclusive power to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court. Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 5(5); see also State v. Blazak, 105 Ariz. 216, 217, 462 P.2d 84, 85 (1969) (supreme court has exclusive power to promulgate procedural rules); State v. Jackson, 184 Ariz. 296, 298, 908 P.2d 1081, 1083 (App.1995) (same). Any court may exercise its inherent power to make and amend rales governing its own local practice. But such rules cannot be inconsistent with the su*650preme court’s rules and, in fact, cannot become effective until approved in writing by the supreme court. Ariz. R.Crim. P. 36, 17 A.R.S.
¶ 28 In City Court of Tucson, the supreme court addressed this limitation on the authority of local courts in the very context presented by the case at hand. 150 Ariz. at 103, 722 P.2d at 271. As noted above, the court held that the chief magistrate of a city court lacked authority under Rule 10.2 to require city prosecutors to avow that they had filed their notices in good faith. Id. There, the court construed the magistrate’s order as an intrusion on the supreme court’s exclusive authority to make procedural rules for Arizona’s courts. Id. In so doing, it emphasized that its rale-making authority “ ‘may not be supplemented or superseded’ ” by state courts of more limited jurisdiction. Id., quoting Hare v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 540, 542, 652 P.2d 1387, 1389 (1982); see also Anderson v. Pickrell, 115 Ariz. 589, 566 P.2d 1335 (1977). Although the magistrate had not suggested that her order constituted a local rule, the supreme court concluded that “the order was in effect a local rule which was not approved by this court and is of no force and effect.” Id.; see also Hare, 133 Ariz. at 542, 652 P.2d at 1389 (superior court “policy” of rejecting plea agreements after a certain deadline was equivalent to local rule that must be approved by supreme court); State v. Darelli, 205 Ariz. 458, ¶ 20, 72 P.3d 1277, ¶ 20, 404 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 9, ¶ 20 (App.2003) (interpreting individual judge’s decision to reject last-minute plea negotiation as intrusion on supreme court’s rule-making authority).
¶ 29 In short, a superior court may not use its inherent authority to “supplement” the supreme court’s procedural rules with remedial orders of its own creation when, as here, those orders frustrate the intent of a rule in question. Such orders are construed as local rules not approved by the supreme court. Under City Court of Tucson, a court lacks inherent authority to issue an order that either supersedes or supplements the explicit provisions of a supreme court procedural rale unless it first adopts a local rule and receives approval of that rule from the supreme court. Here, respondents have conditioned petitioners’ right to a change of judge under Rule 10.2 on a procedure that, at minimum, would supplement the rule and, arguably, undermine it altogether.7 In so doing, respondents have acted in excess of their authority. See Mitchell v. Superior Court, 142 Ariz. 332, 335, 690 P.2d 51, 54 (1984) (superior court procedural order void because it produced a result contrary to the rules promulgated by the supreme court).
¶ 30 Respondents also contend that the exercise of a peremptory strike of a judge is analogous to the peremptory striking of a juror. Just as counsel may be compelled to establish race- and gender-neutral reasons for having stricken a potential juror, see Bat-son, respondents argue that counsel may be required to establish that they have not employed Rule 10.2 for an improper purpose. See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 1770-71, 131 L.Ed.2d 834, 839 (1995).
¶31 The respondent judges note that the supreme court drew the same analogy in its comment to ER 8.4(g), but the analogy is of limited significance. The jury selection process implicates constitutional rights of defendants and jurors, requiring a balancing and recognition of both. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 87, 106 S.Ct. at 1718, 90 L.Ed.2d at 81. Rule 10.2, however, does not enforce a federal constitutional right. Rather, it articulates a procedural right created by the supreme court. As a result, the supreme court must determine the process that must be followed to exercise and enforce it. Thus, although Batson illustrates a proce*651dure by which the supreme court might choose to address abuses under Rule 10.2, that ease has nothing to say on the pivotal legal question here: whether superior courts possess the authority to graft their own procedural overlay on a rule of criminal procedure promulgated and recently amended by the Arizona Supreme Court.
¶ 32 Nothing in the comment to ER 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct suggests that the supreme court considered the propriety of using the Batson methodology to address potential abuses of Rule 10.2. In referring to the peremptory stinking of a juror in the comment to ER 8.4(g), the supreme court simply acknowledged that both situations offer a potential for abuse. Indeed, as the 2001 amendments to Rule 10.2(b) demonstrate, the supreme court specifically chose a different procedural mechanism from that employed in Batson and its progeny to address its concerns about abuse.8
¶ 33 Finally, the well-crafted and thoughtful dissent merits some response. The dissent concludes that a trial judge has inherent authority to “inquire into a possible violation of Rule 10.2, either real or perceived, when that judge has determined there is cause to do so” and may “investigate] a prima facie violation of the rule by requesting an explanation from counsel.” That conclusion, however, poses more questions than it answers. On what basis, and using what factors, is a trial judge to “determinen there is cause” for such inquiry? And what constitutes a “prima facie violation” that supposedly triggers the judge’s prerogative to “investigate” and demand an explanation from counsel? What would be the appropriate nature and scope of the inquiry?
¶ 34 As the dissent correctly notes, a statute’s use of the word “shall” may be deemed directory rather than mandatory when the context and underlying purpose support that construction. See Way v. State, 205 Ariz. 149, ¶ 10, 67 P.3d 1232, ¶ 10 (App.2003). But here, as explained above, the history and purpose of Rule 10.2, and our supreme court’s consistent interpretation of the rule before and after the 2001 amendments, demonstrate that the language of Rule 10.2(d) is mandatory.
¶ 35 The dissent further suggests that Rule 10.2(b) is “relegated to an empty and ineffectual exercise” unless trial judges may question attorneys about their reasons for exercising their right to a change of judge. But that assumes attorneys will not honestly execute the avowals now required under Rule 10.2(b) and that judges will be unable or unwilling to report abuses of the rule to the State Bar, as the comments to the 2001 amendments to Rule 10.2 and ER 8.4(g) contemplate. We cannot accept those assumptions. See Solberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 182, 137 Cal.Rptr. 460, 561 P.2d 1148, 1157-58 (1977) (refusing to assume that “substantial numbers of members of the bar are so neglectful of their personal and professional honor that they repeatedly perjure themselves merely to gain an uncertain advantage in litigation” by making false statements under oath in support of ehange-of judge motions); Canon 3D(2), Ariz.Code of Judicial Conduct, Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. 81, 17A *652A.R.S. (“A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action,” and a judge “having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of [those rules] that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty [or] trustworthiness ... shall inform the appropriate authority.”).
¶36 Although respondents may not view the avowal requirement coupled with the State Bar enforcement mechanism as a perfect or adequate remedy for alleged violations of Rule 10.2(b), it is the remedy our supreme court has chosen. Nothing in this record suggests that mechanism is ineffective, unworkable, or somehow “insulates the rule’s continued misuse,” as the dissent argues.9 We can reasonably assume that, in interpreting the 2001 amendments to Rule 10.2, the supreme court placed some measure of confidence in both the integrity of this state’s trial lawyers (to submit honest avowals) and the vigilance of its trial courts (to refer the rare violator to the State Bar for potential discipline). And, contrary to the dissent’s assertion, neither the rule nor this opinion confers “immunity” on attorneys whose avowals under Rule 10.2(b) are false or who otherwise violate the rule.
¶ 37 In addressing the purpose of the 2001 amendments, the dissent quotes the comments of the Maricopa County judges who sought to abolish Rule 10.2 altogether. Thereby, the dissent usefully highlights some of the perceived drawbacks of the rule. As previously noted, however, the board of governors of the State Bar of Arizona countered the Maricopa County judges with arguments in favor of the rule. It is not our domain to render any judgment on the merits of these positions, and we do not do so here. In 2001, our supreme court considered those arguments and, in response thereto, provided the remedial structure found in Rule 10.2(b) and the comment to its amendments. We merely hold, as we must, that the courts of Arizona are bound by that conclusion. See Blazak; Jackson.
CONCLUSION
¶ 38 By refusing to honor petitioners’ exercise of their clients’ rights to peremptorily remove a judge and to immediately reassign the case to another judge, respondent Judge O’Neil “failed to ... perform a duty required by law as to which he has no discretion” or “proceeded ... without or in excess of jurisdiction or legal authority.” Ariz. R.P. Special Actions 3(a) and (b). Similarly, by accepting the referral of these matters from Judge O’Neil, conducting the May 1 hearing, and proposing to conduct another hearing to inquire of petitioners the reasons for their use of Rule 10.2, Judge Campbell also “failed to ... perform a duty required by law as to which he has no discretion” or “proceeded or is threatening to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction or legal authority.” Ariz. R.P. Special Actions 3(a) and (b). Consequently, we grant special action relief and vacate the respondent judges’ orders.
CONCURRING: JOHN PELANDER, Presiding Judge.

. The Arizona Attorney General has properly appeared on behalf of the respondent judges because "the purpose of the response is to explain or defend an administrative practice [or] policy.” Hurles v. Superior Court, 174 Ariz. 331, 333, 849 P.2d 1, 3 (App.1993).

. The city prosecutor had issued a blanket order to his assistant attorneys to peremptorily challenge the city magistrate in question — an action that the supreme court found to be a genuine abuse of the rule. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. at 103, 722 P.2d at 271.

. Then Chief Justice Zlaket noted that Justices Jones and Martone had dissented from the order amending the rule and were in favor of abolishing it. Ariz. Sup.Ct. Order (May 23, 2001) (experimentally amending Rule 10.2, effective July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002). Judge Campbell, the Presiding Judge of Maricopa County Superior Court, and three of his colleagues filed formal comments to the rule stating that they favored severely limiting the rule because their court suffered administrative difficulty from reassigning cases. In re Rule 10.2, R. No. 00-0025 cmt. by Maricopa County Presiding Judge and Criminal Department Presiding Judge (filed March 8, 2001). The board of governors of the State Bar of Arizona opposed the amendments, apparently based on the board's belief that, because the requirements of Rule 10.1 were so difficult to meet, “some mechanism is necessary to replace judges without acrimony and confrontation.” In re Rule 10.2, R. No. 00-0025 crat. by the State Bar of Arizona (filed March 16, 2001). The Yuma County Attorney had similar comments, noting the need for a process to reassign cases that avoided embarrassment to judges and attor*648neys. In re Rule 10.2, R. No. 00-0025 cml. by Yuma County Attorney (filed March 15, 2001).

. The comment also noted that wholesale abolition of the right of a peremptory change of judge is a potential remedy for continued abuse of the rule.

. In light of Rule 10.2’s requirement that attorneys specifically avow that they have filed a notice in good faith and not for any impermissible reason, respondents’ orders, which in essence require petitioners to appear and demonstrate the veracity of those avowals, suggest that the attorneys’ avowals cannot be trusted. Such orders carry an inherent challenge to an attorney’s credibility and thereby ensure the very acrimony Rule 10.2 was designed to prevent. The tone of petitioner Bergeron’s pleadings exemplifies how such orders will be received by counsel. Berger-on complains that order ’’implies that judges are able to tell when attorneys — as officers of the court — are willing to lie to the court .... Once again, this attitude reveals the unfortunate state of relationships between the bench and the bar

. The report of the Pinal County Superior Court administrator showed, for example, that petitioner Beck filed a notice as to Judge O’Neil in eleven out of twelve cases or 91.67 percent of the cases assigned between January 1 and May 2, 2003; Bergeron disqualified O'Neil in three out of five cases or 60 percent of the cases assigned; Huggins disqualified O’Neil in four out of six cases or 66.67 percent of the cases assigned; and the Gregan "agency” sought to remove O’Neil in five out of seven cases or 71.43 percent. Petitioner Soos disqualified Judge Figueroa in five out of six cases or 83.33 percent of the cases assigned during this period.

. Other courts have reached similar conclusions and precluded judicial inquiry into the reasons underlying counsel's peremptory change of judge. See, e.g., Solberg v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 182, 137 Cal.Rptr. 460, 561 P.2d 1148, 1158 (1977) (permitting such judicial inquiry "would rewrite the statute in the guise of construing it, would introduce procedural complications resulting in delay, and would contravene the fundamental policies" underlying the change-of-judge statute); Bower v. Morden, 126 Idaho 215, 880 P.2d 245, 249 (1994) ("There is no discretionary act involved in ruling upon a motion under [change-of-judge rule] because any motion brought in conformity with the rule must be granted as a matter of right.”).

. People ex rel. Baricevic v. Wharton, 136 Ill.2d 423, 144 Ill.Dec. 786, 556 N.E.2d 253 (1990), cited by the dissent, provides us little guidance in evaluating our Rule 10.2. First, the Illinois provision for a change of judge arose from statute, whereas Arizona’s provision arises from a supreme court procedural rule. 38 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/114—5. Second, the Illinois statute permitted a change of judge exclusively "on the ground that such judge is prejudiced" against a party, Wharton, 144 Ill.Dec. 786, 556 N.E.2d at 255, quoting 38 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/114—5(c), while Arizona’s rule contains no such limitation. Finally, the Illinois statute contained no explicit provision to remedy potential abuse, but our supreme court has amended Arizona’s rule to include such a provision.
Even if we were to overlook the dissimilarities between the Illinois statute addressed in Wharton and Arizona’s procedural rule, Wharton could not be compelling authority here because we must be guided first by the conclusions of the Arizona Supreme Court. Our supreme court addressed the same separation-of-powers problem presented in Wharton in the context of our own Rule 10.2. City Court of Tucson, 150 Ariz. at 102-03, 722 P.2d at 270-71. As discussed above, our supreme court came to a different conclusion and barred the trial court from providing its own remedy for perceived abuse of the rule. Id. at 103, 722 P.2d at 271.

. We question how respondents’ proposed remedy for abuse improves upon the avowal requirement explicitly provided by the rule. Those attorneys who have submitted a truthful avowal pursuant to Rule 10.2(c) have committed no violation of the rule. Those few attorneys who would submit an untruthful avowal are not likely to demonstrate any greater honesty in the face of a judicial inquiry.