e-legal

Volume 12, No. 11 | May 28, 2013 

eye on ethics

Q: May my paralegal secretly record a conversation I have with opposing counsel?

A: No. Generally, a lawyer may not secretly record conversations with opposing counsel and may not authorize his non-lawyer assistant to engage in conduct that would violate the lawyer�s professional responsibilities.  ERs 5.3 and 8.4(d), Ariz. Ethics Opinion 95-03.

 

Career Center Header

Job Bank Banner

 

 Az Atty Header

Prosecution Ethics
A proposed Ethical Rule change would affect how prosecutors and others must respond if they suspect a wrongful conviction. Read our pro-con. 

Read Magazine

 

member news

Lawyer Patricia Gerrich Recognized by AZFLSE: The Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education (AZFLSE) redognized Patricia Gerrich for her continued efforts on advancing access to justice in Arizona.  Ms. Gerrich is currently the Director of the Volunteer Lawyer's Program for Maricopa County, and she is a tireless advocate for the underserved.  Ms. Gerrich is a constant friend, supporter, and partner with the Foundation.  The Foundation's cause is her cause, and for that and all the wonderful work she does, the AZFSLE thanks Patricia Gerrich.

In the news

Wal-Mart Pleads Guilty for California Hazardous Waste: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay $81 million after pleading guilty to criminal charges the company dumped hazardous waste across California, a company spokeswoman said Tuesday. more�

Jodi Arias Mistrial - New Jury to Decide Penalty: Jurors in the Jodi Arias trial failed to reach a unanimous verdict Thursday, after more than 13 hours of deliberating whether the convicted murderer deserves the death penalty. more�

from the bar

More Volunteers Sought for Judicial Selection Commission: If you live in Supervisorial District 4 or 5 in Pinal County, apply by May 30 to serve on the newly forming Pinal County Commission on Trial Court Appointments. more�

Fake Check Scams Continue to Target Lawyers: So how does the scam work? Federal law says that when customers cash a check the funds must be made available, in most cases, within five business days. You deposit the check today, and the money appears in your balance tomorrow. However, that doesn't mean the check has cleared. That process can take weeks. Scammers count on the time between when the funds are "available" and the check has "cleared". Sound familiar? Let�s hope not. more�

Submit Your Comments on Arizona Case Processing Standards Project: The Arizona Case Processing Steering Committee seeks your comments regarding preliminary recommendations for case processing standards in the superior, justice, and municipal courts in Arizona. The steering committee, chaired by Justice Brutinel, will review the comments and feedback posted on the website in order to revise the recommended standards. The website will be available through May 31, 2013 for comment. more�

Ethics Committee Proposes Amending Conflicts Rule: The State Bar's Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct (Ethics Committee) is proposing that the State Bar file a rule-change petition to modify the ethical rules on screening and imputation of conflicts. more�

Football Hall of Famer Turned Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Featured at State Bar Convention Luncheon: Tickets are selling quickly for the State Bar of Arizona Annual Luncheon that will be held on Friday, June 21. The luncheon will feature Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan C. Page who played defense for the Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears earning him a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Today he is heavily involved in support of equal education for all children, having established the Page Education Foundation. more�

Chandler Attorney Raymond L. Miller Disbarred for Misappropriating Client Funds: The Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order disbarring Raymond L. Miller of Chandler on April 17, 2013. more�

Register for the Black Women Lawyer's Association Annual Awards Dinner by Friday: Join the Black Women Lawyer's Association of Arizona as it hosts its annual awards dinner on Friday, June 7 at the Phoenix School of Law. The awards will recognize five deserving attorneys in the State and will feature Ida Wilber, Deputy Defense Attorney from the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, as their keynote speaker. Registration deadline is Friday, May 31. more�

Bar Leadership Institute Accepting Applications for 2013-14 Class: The State Bar of Arizona invites attorneys across the State to participate in the upcoming Bar Leadership Institute class. The Bar Leadership Institute is a nine-month professional development program beginning in September 2013. The goal of the program is to increase participation and visibility in the State Bar and community at-large, particularly for attorneys identifying with historically under-represented populations including those groups emphasizing racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability and geographic diversity. more�

We Want to Take You Out to the Ballgame: Did you know State Bar members receive special discounts on Arizona Diamondbacks tickets at selected games?  For more information or to purchase tickets, click here or contact Kristen Leetz, Group Sales, 602.462.4243.

Discounts on LexisNexis�: Solo practitioners and small firms are eligible for State Bar member benefit packages and pricing for LexisNexis� Total Solutions, products designed to help in the business and practice of law. Click here to learn about your LexisNexis member benefits, products and services. To discuss your firm's unique needs, call 866.836.8116 and mention you're a member of the State Bar of Arizona � code M.

For a listing of all your State Bar member discounts, please click here.

court decisions

Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
Division Two

May 9, 2013 - 1 CA-CV 12-0089 - Balestrieri v. Balestrieri
1. Whether Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 54(g)(1), which states that a request for attorney's fees "shall be made in the pleadings," precludes an award of fees to a defendant who does not file an answer but instead successfully moves to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b). 2. Whether a defendant waives personal jurisdiction by filing a request for attorney's fees with a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 3. Whether a defendant who successfully moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may wait  to request attorney's fees until after the court has granted the motion. Read Opinion.

May 20, 2013 - 2 CA-CR 2013-0001-PR - State of Arizona v. Brandon Albert Seay 
Did the trial court err in declining to award presentence incarceration credit in imposing sentence when the defendant was transferred from prison to a county jail for arraignment, the trial court set no release conditions at arraignment, and the defendant was not returned to prison following arraignment? Read Opinion.

 

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

May 21, 2013 - 12-16670 - Paul Issacson v. Tom Horne
District court's order denying declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiffs in their challenge to Arizona House Bill 2036, enacted in April 2012, is reversed, where: 1) the Constitution does not permit the Arizona legislature to prohibit abortion beginning at twenty weeks gestation, before the fetus is viable; 2) under controlling Supreme Court precedent, Arizona may not deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at any point prior to viability; and 3) the legislation at issue effects such a deprivation by prohibiting abortion from twenty weeks gestational age through fetal viability, and is thus unconstitutional. Read Opinion.

May 20, 2013 - 11-15631 - City of Glendale v. United States
Summary judgment for federal defendants in action by plaintiff-city seeking to set aside the U.S. Dept. of the Interior's decision to accept in trust, for the benefit of the Tohono O'odham Nation, a 54-acre parcel of land known as Parcel 2 on which the Nation hoped to build a resort and casino, is: 1) affirmed in part, where the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act, read as a whole is unambiguous and section 6(c) creates a cap only on land held in trust for the Nation, not on total land acquisition by the tribe under the Act; 2) affirmed in part, where the Act does not exceed Congress' power under the Indian Commerce Clause or violate the Tenth Amendment; and 3) reversed and remanded in part, where section 6(d) of the Act is ambiguous as to whether Parcel 2 was "within plaintiff's corporate limits" and the Secretary of the Interior was mistaken that the term has a plain meaning. Read Opinion.

 

 

 

Visit azbar.org for more news about the State Bar.

 

Terms of Use
Copyright �2004-2013

State Bar of Arizona

4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6266
602.252.4804
 
 

State Bar of Arizona

270 N. Church Ave., Ste. 100
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: 520.623.9944