Your state’s pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Arizona T&E solo who knows the Uniform Probate Code (Arizona’s A.R.S. Title 14) cold but still loses an afternoon a week hunting the current homestead number, the Medicaid (AHCCCS / ALTCS) long-term-care posture, whether the latest State Bar of Arizona ethics guidance changes how you scope an engagement, or whether a recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision just moved the law on capacity, undue influence, or a trustee’s duties. What’s below is what mattered in Arizona lately — the week’s developments and the recent rulings from the bench.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments from the last several weeks that I think actually matter to an Arizona T&E solo. Each one has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each one comes with the citation so you can verify the detail yourself before you use it with a client.
SB 1668 (Ariz. Laws 2026, Ch. 74), approved June 4, 2026, amends A.R.S. § 36-831, the priority order for who controls funeral arrangements and disposition of a decedent’s remains: it cleans up decedent terminology, clarifies that a health-care power of attorney can carry disposition authority and how parenting plans for minors interact, and devolves the duty to the next person in the § 36-831(A) order when the otherwise-responsible person is charged with the criminal death of the decedent.
If your estate-planning package designates a disposition agent, confirm the language tracks the amended priority order before the September 12 effective date — and note the new HCPOA-carries-disposition-authority clarification when you counsel clients on separating health-care and disposition powers.
Ariz. Laws 2026, Ch. 74 (SB 1668), amending A.R.S. § 36-831, eff. Sept. 12, 2026 · azleg.gov
Per AHCCCS, effective January 1, 2026 the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) gross monthly income limit is $2,982 for an individual (300% of the Federal Benefit Rate). ALTCS, delivered through AHCCCS, applies both financial and medical eligibility tests; this is the financial-side income figure for the new year.
For an Arizona solo, this is the number to use this year on every long-term-care screen. ALTCS has both a financial and a medical test, so the $2,982 income figure is one gate, not the whole analysis — but a client over it needs a planning vehicle, not a wait-and-see. Update your ALTCS intake worksheet to the 2026 figure so you aren’t screening against last year’s limit.
AHCCCS — ALTCS eligibility (eff. Jan. 1, 2026) · azahcccs.gov · ALTCS
Per azcourts.gov, the Arizona Steering Committee on AI and the Courts (created by Administrative Order 2024-33) issued “Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges,” and the State Bar of Arizona maintains a standing AI-guidance page for practitioners. Both are live obligations addressing competence, confidentiality, verification, and billing — Arizona is not a no-guidance vacuum.
For an Arizona solo, the practical move is to read both: the court committee’s best-practices document for judicial-facing and practice ethics, and the State Bar’s page for the practitioner how-to. Treat verification of AI output, confidentiality of inputs, and a defensible fee basis as the baseline, and align your AI workflow with the published guidance before it is tested in a matter.
Ariz. Steering Committee on AI and the Courts (Admin. Order 2024-33), Ethical Best Practices · azcourts.gov · AISC guidance
Decisions that bind an Arizona practitioner — Arizona’s appellate courts and the federal courts covering Arizona, including the U.S. Ninth Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
A 93-year-old decedent left three adult children. The daughter applied for appointment as special administrator, found the estate held nothing because the assets were titled in her brother’s name, and petitioned for adjudication of intestacy and appointment as personal representative. Both siblings opposed. The Maricopa County probate court admitted the will to formal probate and appointed the daughter; the brother appealed self-represented. Division One affirmed — and then devoted most of a published opinion to his brief, which contained eight citations, six of them deficient, several to cases that do not exist. He admitted he had used generative-AI research tools and had done nothing to verify the output. The court struck the false citations, held that “citing a hallucinated case in a legal filing is sanctionable conduct” under ARCAP 25, found the claims groundless and not made in good faith under A.R.S. § 12-349, and awarded the appellee that portion of her fees traceable to the hallucinations.
Two things here, and the second one is the one to file away. First, in Arizona a self-represented litigant is held to an attorney’s standard — so the opposing party in your contested probate who shows up with an AI-drafted brief is sanctionable, and the fees you burn identifying their fake authorities are recoverable. That is a real cost-shifting lever, and the court expressly tied the award to the hallucination-caused portion of the work. Second, and this is the discipline: the opinion places the duty squarely on the person who files, and says the absence of intent to deceive is no defense. You cannot offload verification to the tool. The court also maps the national line it is joining — the Sixth Circuit, New York’s Appellate Division, and the Indiana, Missouri, and Georgia appellate courts — so this is settled direction, not a first impression.
In the Matter of the Estate of Gloria Dolores B. Acciavatti (Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka), No. 1 CA-CV 25-0606 PB (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One July 15, 2026) — published opinion, affirmed; sanctions awarded. · COA1.AZCOURTS.GOV · official opinion
This week in Arizona for the T&E solo with AHCCCS / ALTCS clients: the developments from the State Bar of Arizona (Probate & Trust Law Section) and AHCCCS that actually moved your practice this period — each one primary-source verified.
Bar and Medicaid changes land on different schedules and aren't indexed by practice focus. Every item here was checked against its primary source, with the link, so you can verify before relying on it.