state bar of arizona board of governors and good legal
TRANSCRIPT
STATE BAR OF ARIZONA BOARD OF GOVERNORS
The State Bar of Arizona Board of Governors oversees the policy making and operation of the organization. The Board is comprised of 30 people: four non-attorney, public members appointed by the Board; three at-large members appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court; 19 attorney members elected by fellow Bar members in their district; and three ex-officio members (immediate past president and the deans of Arizona's three law schools).
PresidentRaymond A. Hanna
Raymond A. Hanna PCPO Box 2299Prescott, AZ 86302-2299Phone: 928-771-9050Fax: 928-443-0384
President-ElectAlan P. Bayham, Jr.
Bayham Jerman PLC1440 E. Missouri, Suite C-211Phoenix, AZ 85014-2458Phone: 602-200-9050Fax: 602-445-3472
First Vice PresidentJoseph A. Kanefield
Office of the Governor1700 W. Washington St., 9th Fl.Phoenix, AZ 85007Phone: 602-542-1586Fax: 602-542-7602
Second Vice PresidentAmelia Craig Cramer
Chief Deputy Pima County AttorneyOffices of Pima County AttorneyLegal Services Bldg, 19th Floor32 N. Stone AvenueTucson, AZ 85701-1403Phone: 520-740-5598Fax: 520-740-5495
Secretary-TreasurerWhitney Cunningham
Cunningham Mott PC2951 W. Shamrell Boulevard, Suite 107Flagstaff, AZ 86002-0280Phone: 928-556-8640Fax: 928-556-8641
YLD PresidentSamuel Saks
Cantelme & Brown PLC3030 N. Central Ave, Suite 1107Phoenix, AZ 85017Phone: 602-200-0104Fax: 602-200-0106
District 3 (Gila, Graham, and Greenlee Counties)
Bryan B. Chambers
Chief Deputy County AttorneyGila County Attorney’s Office1400 E. Ash StreetGlobe, AZ 85501-1414Phone: 928-425-3231Fax: 928-425-3720
District 4 (Cochise County)
Roger H. Contreras
Deputy County AttorneyOffice of the Cochise County AttorneyDrug UnitPost Office Drawer CABisbee, Arizona 85603Phone: 520-432-8700Fax: 520-432-2487
District 5 (Pima, Santa Cruz Counties)
Michael J. Crawford
Mesch Clark & Rothschild PC259 N. MeyerTucson, AZ 85701-1090Phone: 520-624-8886Fax: 520-798-1037
Dee-Dee Samet
Dee-Dee Samet PC717 N. 6th AvenueTucson, AZ 85705-8304Phone: 520-624-8595Fax: 520-623-4560
District 6 (Maricopa County)
Theodore Campagnolo
Office of Attorney General1275 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85007-2997Phone: 602-542-8425Fax: 602-542-5997
Richard Coffinger
Law Office of Richard D. Coffinger6838 N. 58th DriveGlendale, AZ 85301-3223Phone: 623-937-9214Fax: 623-937-7072
Tom Crowe
Crowe & Scott, PA1100 E. Washington Street, Suite 200Phoenix, AZ 85034-1090Phone: 602-252-2570Fax: 602-252-1939
Stephen M. Dichter
Harper, Christian, Dichter & Graif, P.C.2700 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0001Phone: 602-792-1700Fax: 602-792-1710
Diane L. Drain
Law Office of D. L. Drain PA1702 W. Camelback, Suite 264Phoenix, AZ 85015-3347Phone: 602-246-7106Fax: 602-249-1969
H. Leslie HallTheodore C. Jarvi, Attorney at Law1050 E. Southern Ave., Suite G-3Tempe, AZ 85282-0001Phone: 480-838-6566Fax: 480-838-8810
Lisa Loo
Deputy General CounselArizona State UniversityP.O. Box 87-7405Tempe, AZ 85287-7405Phone: 480-965-4550Fax: 480-965-0984
District 7 (La Paz and Yuma Counties)
Jimmie Dee Smith
Attorney at Law221 S. Second AvenueYuma, AZ 85364-2265Phone: 928-783-7809Fax: 928-783-7800
District 8 (Pinal County)
Richard T. Platt
Office of the Pinal County Attorney100 N. FlorenceP.O. Box 887Florence, AZ 85232-0887Phone: 520-866-6271Fax: 520-866-6519
Ex-Officio Members
Immediate Past PresidentEdward F. Novak
Polsinelli ShughartSecurity Title Plaza3636 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200Phoenix, AZ 85012Phone: 602-650-2020Fax: 602-264-7033
Lawrence Ponoroff
Dean, James E. Rogers College of LawUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ 85721-0001Phone: 520-621-1498Fax: 520-626-2050
Gene Clark
Dean, Phoenix School of Law4041 N. Central Avenue, Suite 100Phoenix, Arizona 85012Phone: 602 682-6814Fax: 602 682-6998
Paul Schiff Berman
Dean, Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawArizona State UniversityTempe, AZ 85287-7906Phone: 480-965-6188Fax: 480-965-6521
Public Members
Frank Barriga5233 W. Hatcher Road
Glendale, AZ 85302Phone: 602-809-2695
John J. Sullivan
15067 S. Camino Rio PuercoSahuarita, AZ 85629Phone: 520-207-1665
Emily R. Johnston
89550 E. Aravaipa RoadWinkelman, AZ 85292Phone: 520-357-6117Fax: 520-744-4355
Alexander B. Jamison
Mediation & Ombudsman Resolutions, ETC9393 N. 90th Street, #102-130Scottsdale, AZ 85258Phone: 480-905-7073Fax: 480-905-1695
At Large Members
Jennifer J. BurnsP.O. Box 27045Tucson, AZ 85726Phone Number: 520-437-0170
David K. Byers
Administrative DirectorAdministrative Office of the Courts1501 W. Washington, Suite 411Phoenix, AZ 85007-3329Phone: 602-452-3307Fax: 602-452-3484
Virginia Herrera-Gonzales
Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney GeneralChild and Family Protection DivisionProtective Services Section430 N. Dobson, #101Mesa, AZ 85201Phone: 480-834-3775, Ext. 212Fax: 480-834-8194
Aguilar, Denise K. Title: Attorney Company: Aguilar Law Firm, P.C. Address: 4425 E. Agave Rd. Ste. 104 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85044 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)455-1881 Fax: (480)621-3018 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Bankruptcy Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Aguilera, Gabriel T. Company: Quarles & Brady Streich Lang,LLP City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)229-5730 Fax: (602)420-5016 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Corporate Securities
Araneta, Honorable Louis A. Title: Judge Company: Maricopa County Superior Court Address: 201 W. Jefferson Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Araneta, Louis A. Company: Maricopa County Superior Court Address: 1810 S. Lewis City: Mesa State: AZ Zip: 85210 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: [email protected] Arellano, Silvia Title: Judge Company: Maricopa County Superior Court Address: 222 East Javelina, Suite 203 C City: Mesa, State: AZ Zip: 85210 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)506-3679 Fax: (602)372-8668 E-mail: [email protected] Armendarez, Theresa M. Title: Sole Practitioner Company: Theresa M. Armendarez, P.L.C. Address: 3219 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 828 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85018 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)274-7238 Fax: (602)274-7372 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Appellate (Civil) Appellate (Criminal) Juvenile
Baca, Yolanda Company: Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. Address: 2575 E. Camelback Rd. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85016 Phone: (602)530-8183 Fax: (602)530-8500 E-mail: [email protected] Barraza, Jason Matthew City: Phoenix State: AZ Spanish Speaking: No Area of Practice
Non-Profit Organization
Breeze, Michael Anthony Company: Yuma County Public Defender Address: 168 S. Second Avenue City: Yuma State: AZ Zip: 85364 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (928)817-4600 Fax: (928)817-4619 E-mail: [email protected] Bustamante, Antonio Company: Law Office of Antonio D. Bustamante, P.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)495-1414 Fax: (602)253-7724 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Bustamante, Ernest S. Company: Ricker & Bustamante, LLP Address: 4530 E.Shea Blvd., #150 City: Phoenix State: AZ Phone: (602)277-9900 Fax: (602)277-9970 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Construction Insurance Medical Malpractice Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Defense) Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Calderon, Ernest Company: Calderon Law Offices Address: 3101 N. Central Ave., #700 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)265-0004 Fax: (602)230-1377 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Appellate (Civil) Commercial Litigation Contracts Employment and Labor Law
General Civil
Calleros, Charles R. Title: Prof. Company: Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, ASU Address: 1100 S. McCallister Ave. City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85226 Spanish Speaking: No Fax: (480)965-2427 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Civil Rights Contracts International
Carpio, Xavier Alexander Company: Snow & Carpio, PLC Address: PO Box 33994 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85013 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)532-0700 Fax: (602)532-0701 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Commercial Litigation Workers' Compensation Criminal (Defense) General Litigation Insurance Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Carrion, Carlos D Company: Maricopa County Public Defender's Office Address: 620 W. Jackson St., Suite 4015 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: [email protected] Chacon, Neyma Title: Sole Practitioner City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85041 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)262-4323 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Chavez, Honorable Harriett Title: Judge Company: Superior Court Address: 201 W. Jefferson City: Phoenix State: AZ Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)506-4208 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Family Law
Cisneros, Milagros A. Company: Office of Federal Public Defender City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85007 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)382-2727 Fax: (602)382-2800 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) Government
Cota, Francisca Company: Phoenix Municipal Court Address: 300 W. Washington Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85310 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Judicial
Cotto, Sylvina Company: Scottsdale Financial Center III City: Scottsdale State: AZ Zip: 85251 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)429-3700 Fax: (480)481-9021 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Domestic Relations
Cruz, Richard A. Title: Of Counsel Company: Richard A. Cruz, P.C. Address: 10429 S. 51st Street, Suite 210 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85044 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)477-8660 Fax: (480)477-8657 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Cruz, Samantha Jo Address: 7808 N. 32nd Drive City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85051 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)201-8123 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Corporate Entertainment Family Law
Denny, Mike Address: 920 E. Devonshire Ave Unit 3019 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85014 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: [email protected] DeSoto, Rita E. Company: DeSoto Law Firm Address: 2942 N. 24th St, Suite 114 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85016 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)424-7445 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Family Law
Diaz, Marisol Juarez Address: 139 N 11th Ave., Unit A City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85007 Spanish Speaking: No Dominguez, Antonio Company: Dominguez & Associates,P.C Address: 2323 N. 3rd St, Suite 100 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)252-1885 Fax: (602)252-1905 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Condemnation Elder Law Estate Planning General Litigation Probate/Trusts/Wills Real Estate
Escobedo, Esteban Title: Attorney Company: Law Offices of Esteban Escobedo Address: 512 E. Southern Ave, Ste. E City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85282 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (480)968-6878 Fax: (480)968-6917 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Bankruptcy Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff) Tax
Esquer, Cecilia D. City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85282 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (480)968-4934 E-mail: [email protected] Estrella, Cynthia R. Title: Attorney at Law Company: Polsinelli Shughart Address: 3636 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)650-2003 Fax: (602)926-8108 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Commercial Litigation
Construction Litigation Suretyship
Flores, Albert M Company: Law Offices of Albert M. Flores Address: 337 N. 4th Avenue City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)271-0070 Fax: (602)252-1922 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Flores, Christopher A. Company: Law Office of Christopher A. Flores City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)271-0070 Fax: (602)252-1922 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) DUI Juvenile
Flores, Christopher A. Company: Law Office of Christopher A. Flores City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)271-0070 Fax: (602)252-1922 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense)
Fontes, Adrian P. Company: Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes Address: 111 W. Monroe Street, Suite 425 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)257-9083 Fax: (602)424-2128 E-mail: [email protected] Fontes, Magaly Title: Attorney Company: The Law Office of Magaly Fontes Address: 2256 N. 15th Avenue City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85007 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)503-8320 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Immigration
Galarza, Rod Company: Kasdan, Simonds, Riley & Vaughn LLP City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85016 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)224-7800 Fax: (602)224-7801 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Construction Litigation
Gámez, Michele Company: City of Phoenix Prosecutor's Office Address: 300 West Washington City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85030 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: [email protected] Garcia, Gregorio M. City: Phoenix State: AZ Spanish Speaking: No Area of Practice
Commercial Litigation Construction Medical Malpractice Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Garcia, Lina Company: Maricopa County Public Defender Address: 620 W Jackson Ste 4015 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense)
Garza, Daniel Company: Law Office G. Daniel Garza Address: 3303 E. Baseline 113 City: Gilbert State: AZ Zip: 85234 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Defense) Social Security
Gitnacht, Bruno Address: 995 E. Baseline Rd., APT # 2161 City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85283 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (702)378-3467 E-mail: [email protected] Gomez, David F. Title: President Company: Gomez & Petitti, P.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85016 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)957-8686 Fax: (602)956-9854 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Administrative/Regulatory Appellate (Civil) Civil Rights Education Employment and Labor Law Litigation
Gomez- Green, Edna Title: Paralegal Company: Fresh Start Womens Foundation Address: 1130 E. McDowell Rd. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85006 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Family Law
Gonzalez - Melendez, Erica R. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85034 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)576-4961 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Prosecution)
Guerrero, Marni F. Company: Peter A. Guerrero, P.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)253-3554 Fax: (602)340-1896 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Civil Rights General Civil Medical Malpractice Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Guerrero, Peter A. Company: Peter A. Guerrero, P.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)253-3554 Fax: (602)340-1896 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Medical Malpractice Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Gutierrez, Francisco X. Company: Law Offices of Francisco X. Gutierrez, P.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)495-0000 Fax: (602)253-7724 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Medical Malpractice Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Gutierrez, Carlos Beltran Title: Attorney Company: Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC Address: 3550 N. Central Ave. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85033 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)264-7101 Fax: (602)234-0419 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Commercial Litigation
Hernandez, James P. Address: PO Box 6568 City: Peoria State: Az Zip: 85385 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (623)680-5392 Fax: (623)328-8831 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) DUI Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Herrera - Gonzales, Virginia Title: Assistant Attorney General Company: Office of the Attorney General City: Mesa State: AZ Zip: 85201 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (480)834-3775 Fax: (480)834-8194 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Civil Rights Government
Herrera- Gonzalez, Virginia Company: Office of the Attorney General City: Mesa State: az Zip: 85201 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)834-3775 Fax: (480)834-8194 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Government
Hirsch, Kyle Company: Bryan Cave LLP City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)364-7170 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Bankruptcy Contracts Employment and Labor Law
Holguin, Jaime B. Title: Commissioner Company: Maricopa County Superior Court Address: 201 S. 4th Avenue City: Phoenix State: Az Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)506-5349 Fax: (602)379-0093 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Judicial
Jimenez, Nilda Title: Certified Paralegal Company: Scott Ambrose Law Firm, P.C. Address: 11000 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 185 City: Scottsdale State: AZ Zip: 85373
Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (480)607-2822 Fax: (480)607-2823 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Paralegal
Kallen, Cid R Title: President Company: PhoenixLaw Hispanic Law Students Association Address: 4041 Noth Central Ave, Bldg C City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (623)521-4513 E-mail: [email protected] Kavanagh, Brandon J Company: Gust Rosenfeld PLC Address: 201 E Washington, Suite 800 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)257-7425 Fax: (602)254-4878 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Contracts Corporate Government Real Estate
Larson, Jennifer M Company: Gust Rosenfeld PLC City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)257-7992 Fax: (602)254-4878 E-mail: [email protected] Limón-Wynn, Monica A. Title: Partner Company: Snell & Wilmer LLP Address: 400 E. Van Buren Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)382-6390 Fax: (602)382-6070 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Commercial Litigation Contracts General Litigation
Lopez, Claudia Patricia Title: Associate Company: Winsor & Tirado PLC Address: 3101 N Central Ave Suite 1300 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)266-0292 Fax: (480)240-5915 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Bankruptcy General Civil Immigration
Lorona, Jess A. Company: Duncan, Lorona & Parks, PC Address: 411 N. Central, Suite 520 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Phone: (602)253-9700 Fax: (602)258-4805 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Maldonado, Ed Company: Law Office of Edward Maldonado Address: PO Box 33335 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85067 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)449-1457 Fax: (602)357-4962 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) DUI
Mariscal, George E. Company: City of Phoenix Law Dept. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)273-8843 Fax: (602)273-4580 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Condemnation Construction Government
Martinez, Cyrus B. Company: Littler Mendelson City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85016 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)474-3600 Fax: (602)957-1801 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Employment and Labor Law
McCarty, Elliott Company: McCarty Law Offices, LLC City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85034 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)254-1131 Fax: (602)254-1135 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Immigration
Mendez, Mina E. Phone: (602)372-0268 Area of Practice Juvenile
Morales- Spelleri, Maria Company: Lewis and Roca LLP City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (6)262-0264 Fax: (602)734-3822 E-mail: [email protected] Morrison, Alicia M. Company: Morrison & Skupin PLLC Address: 845 North 6th Avenue City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)232-2000 E-mail: [email protected] Moya, P. Robert Company: Insight Enterprises Address: 1305 W. Auto Drive City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85284 Phone: (480)333-3045 Fax: (480)760-7162 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Corporate
Navidad, Alex E. Company: Navidad, Leal & Silva, P.L.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)257-0000 Fax: (602)251-3170 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Appellate (Criminal) Asset Forfeiture Civil Forfeiture Criminal (Defense) DUI Immigration Juvenile
Olivas, Amelia N Company: Michael COrdova, PC Address: 1700 N 7th Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85006 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)265-6700 Fax: (602)265-5269 E-mail: amelia.olivas@azbar,org Ongaro, Salvador Company: Davis Miles, PLLC Address: 560 W. Brown Road, 3rd Floor City: Mesa State: AZ Zip: 85201
Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (480)344-4066 Fax: (480)733-3748 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Commercial Litigation General Litigation Immigration Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff) Securities
Ordonez, Karina Janine Title: JD Candidate 2011 Address: 1225 N 36th St. Unit 2123 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85008 Spanish Speaking: Yes E-mail: [email protected] Ortega, Jr., Daniel R. Company: Roush, McCraken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega Address: 650 N. Third Ave. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)253-3554 Fax: (602)340-1896 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Medical Malpractice Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Defense)
Padilla, Joe Company: City of Scottsdale Address: 3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd City: Scottsdale State: AZ Zip: 85251 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)312-2405 Fax: (480)312-2548 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Government Planning and Zoning
Pastor, Robert Company: Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally PLC City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)266-5557 Fax: (602)266-2223 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Civil Rights General Civil Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Defense) Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Pineda, Susanna Title: Judge Company: Maricopa County Superior Court Address: 125 West Washington, Suite 211 City: Phoenix State: Az Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)372-2958 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Judge
Quezada, Martin J. Company: Law Office of Martin J. Quezada, PLLC Address: 125 E. Coronado Rd. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)253-0887 Fax: (602)253-0871 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) Domestic Relations Family Law General Civil Immigration
Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Rivera, Jose de Jesus Company: Haralson, Miller, Pitt & McAnally, PLC Address: 2800 North Central Avenue., Suite 840 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Phone: (602)266-5557 Fax: (602)266-223 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
International Medical Malpractice Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Defense) Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Rodriguez-Perez, Amy Lynn Title: Paralegal/Law Student Company: Western International University Address: 5232 W. Windrose Drive City: Glendale State: AZ Zip: 85304 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)314-5846 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Corporate International
Sampanes, James John Company: City of Phoenix Law Department City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)262-6761 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Employment and Labor Law
Sanchez, Jessica S. Title: Associate Company: Udall, Shumway, & Lyons Address: 30 West First Street City: Mesa State: AZ Zip: 85201 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)461-5368 Fax: (480)833-9392 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Education
Silva, Margarita Company: Navidad, Leal & Silva, P.L.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)257-0000 Fax: (602)251-3170 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense) Immigration
Silvas, Miguel S. Company: Law Office of Manuel S. Silvas City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)271-0070 Fax: (602)252-1922 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Criminal (Defense)
Siqueiros, Nicole Title: Attorney Company: Hallier Law Firm Address: 3216 N. 3rd St., Suite 300 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)285-5500 Area of Practice
Domestic Relations Family Law
Slack-Mendez, Charles J. Title: Attorney Company: Law Office of Charles J. Slack-Mendez Address: 2710 South Rural Road City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85282 Spanish
Speaking: Yes Phone: (480)829-1166 Fax: (480)829-4938 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Bankruptcy Civil Rights Criminal (Defense) Litigation Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff) Professional Malpractice
Song Ong, Honorable Roxanne K. Title: Chief Presiding Judge Company: Phoenix Municipal Court Address: 300 W. Washington Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)262-1899 Fax: (602)534-6291 E-mail: [email protected] Stoll, Bianca A. Title: Esq. Company: Snell & Wilmer LLP Address: 400 E Van Buren One Az Center 18-18 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)382-6236 Fax: (602)382-6070 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Banking Corporate Securities
Testini, Gaetano John Title: Partner Company: Wilmer, Messer and Testini, PLC Address: 202 East Earll Drive Suite 400 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)532-0500 Fax: (602)532-0304 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Workers' Compensation Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff) Social Security
Thompson, Arturo Alejandro Title: Associate Company: Polsinelli Shughart P C Address: 3636 North Central Ave., Suite 1200 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)650-2084 Fax: (602)916-1646 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Bankruptcy Commercial Litigation Intellectual Property
Torgenson, John Company: Fennemore Craig Address: 3003 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2600 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
General Civil
Torres, Israel G Title: Managing Partner Company: Torres Garza Law Group, PLLC Address: 202 East Earll Drive, Suite 400 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)385-0170 Fax: (602)626-8889 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Administrative/Regulatory
Construction Government Land Use Regulation and Litigation Planning and Zoning Real Estate
Valencia, Guadalupe Sosa Title: Senior Policy Advisor Company: Arizona State Senate, Democratic Staff Address: 3336 E. Oak Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85008 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)954-6552 Fax: (602)417-3240 E-mail: [email protected] Zapata, Julio M. Company: Fennemore Craig Address: 3003 N. Central, Suite 2600 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)916-5365 Fax: (602)916-5565 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Bankruptcy Collections Commercial Litigation Contracts General Civil General Litigation Litigation Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff) Real Estate Suretyship
Zapata-Rossa, Marian Company: Quarles & Brady Address: Two North Central Avenue City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)229-5447 Fax: (602)420-5181 E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Employment and Labor Law
Zaragoza, Juan Pablo G. State: AZ Spanish Speaking: Yes E-mail: [email protected] Area of Practice
Corporate Estate Planning International Probate/Trusts/Wills Tax
Zubey, Lizzette Alameda Company: Lewis and Roca, LLP City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)262-5343 Fax: (602)734-3918 E-mail: [email protected] MEDIA CONTACTS
Rick DeBruhlChief Communications [email protected]
Ethical Duty Under ER 3.3
ER 3.3(a)(3) plainly requires an attorney to refrain from knowingly offering false evidence. Further, when an attorney later learns that he or she has offered false material evidence to a tribunal, including evidence offered directly by a client or former client,[7] the attorney must take “reasonable remedial measures, including if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” ER 3.3(a)(3); see also Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29.23 (discussing analogous section of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers (2000) which provides that duty of candor to the tribunal survives termination of the attorney-client relationship). The duty to take remedial measures lasts until “the conclusion of the proceeding.” ER 3.3 cmt. [13]. A proceeding is deemed concluded when the result of the proceeding has been upheld on appeal or the time for the appeal has otherwise expired. Id. In this case, then, the Committee must examine (1) whether Attorney “knows” that false evidence was presented, (2) whether the purportedly false evidence was offered to a “tribunal,” (3) whether the evidence was “material,” (4) what “reasonable remedial measures” are necessary under the circumstances, and (5) the duration of Attorney’s obligation to take such measures.[8]
1) Attorney’s Knowledge
Attorney here first received an indication of Client’s false testimony from a third party. Attorney then privately confronted Client about the third party’s allegations, and Client admitted the perjury in addition to other material facts. To Attorney, these admissions conclusively established the falsity of Client’s prior testimony. Thus, here there is no dispute that Attorney now “knows” that Attorney unwittingly offered Client’s false testimony. See ER 1.0(f) (stating that “actual knowledge of the fact in question” satisfies ER’s knowledge requirement); Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 4 (stating that attorney’s “knowledge” of client’s false testimony is “ordinarily based on the client’s own admissions to the attorney”). Cf. Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29.21 (emphasizing that “knowing” of a client’s false testimony means more than a mere “suggestion” or suspicion that the client has committed perjury).
05-05: Candor to Tribunal; Client Perjury; Confidentiality07/2005
This opinion reviews the ethical dilemma posed when an attorney learns that, due to a former client’s apparent perjury in a civil proceeding, the attorney has offered false material evidence to a tribunal. The Committee concludes that the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, under the facts of this case, provide that the attorney’s duty of candor to the tribunal overcomes the ethical duty of preserving the former client’s confidences and that the attorney must take reasonable remedial measures effective to undo the effect of the false evidence with respect to the affected tribunal.
FACTS [1] [2]
The inquiring Attorney represented Client in an unemployment compensation proceeding. Client’s employer had discharged Client, accusing Client of specified wrongdoing. Denying the allegations, Client sought unemployment benefits. An examiner denied Client any unemployment benefits on the basis of dishonesty and committing a criminal offense against the employer. Client has never been charged with any criminal offense arising from the employer’s allegations. Client retained Attorney to appeal the denial of the unemployment claim. Attorney and Client participated in an appeal before a Department of Economic Security single-member “appeal tribunal.” See generally A.R.S. § 23-671 (describing appeal process from examiner’s decision).
The employer introduced certain evidence on appeal supporting its allegation of Client’s dishonesty. Attorney, through Client’s testimony, countered that evidence and offered additional evidence supporting Client’s case. The appeal tribunal ultimately ruled that the employer did not prove wrongdoing on Client’s part and awarded Client unemployment benefits. Subsequent to the hearing, a third party told Attorney that Client had not been truthful with Attorney or in testimony before the appeal tribunal. Attorney confronted Client about the alleged perjury, and Client admitted the perjury and other material facts to Attorney, establishing that false evidence had been presented to the tribunal. After Attorney privately remonstrated with Client about the need to correct the record, Client discharged Attorney. Attorney believes that although the employer has appealed the hearing officer’s decision, Client has found other employment and is no longer receiving unemployment compensation.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Must an attorney take reasonable remedial measures upon learning of a former client’s false testimony to an unemployment compensation hearing officer, and, if so, what measures must be taken?[3]
RELEVANT ETHICAL RULES [4]
ER 1.0 Terminology
(d) “Fraud” or “fraudulent” denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive.
(f) “Knowingly,” “known,” or “knows” denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.
(m) “Tribunal” denotes a court, an arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding or a legislative body, administrative agency or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity. A legislative body, administrative agency or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a legal judgment directly affecting a party’s interests in a particular matter.
ER 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted or required by paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) or ER 3.3(a)(3).
ER 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or
(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.
ER 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; [or]
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by ER 1.6.
RELEVANT ARIZONA ETHICS OPINIONS
Opinions 00-02, 01-14, 93-10, 92-02, 91-02, 80-27.
OPINION [5]
This opinion addresses the continuing quandary of an attorney’s ethical obligations upon learning that a client has testified falsely before a civil tribunal.[6] Under the previously used Arizona Code of Professional Responsibility, the ethical rules generally did not require or permit an attorney to reveal confidential information learned from a client even in the face of knowledge that the client committed perjury. See generally Ariz. Op. 80-27 (noting that under DR 7-102(B)(1) (as in effect on December 12, 1980), an attorney was not ethically required to reveal a client’s fraud on a tribunal if to do so would violate the client’s confidential communication to the attorney as defined by then-existing DR 4-101).
Under the present Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, however, the balance has shifted away from preserving client confidences and towards the attorney’s duty of candor to the tribunal. ER 3.3(c) explicitly requires the disclosure of a client’s false testimony notwithstanding that the attorney “knows” of the false testimony via a client’s confidential communication. The Rules make the policy determination that insuring the integrity of the decision-making process trumps, in some instances, a lawyer’s traditional duty to protect a client’s confidences. Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 3-4 (recognizing that the “tension” between an attorney’s duty to a client and to the court has been resolved in favor of the court in the context of a client giving false evidence); Geoffrey C. Hazard & William Hodes, Jr., 2 The Law of Lawyering §§ 29-14, at p. 29-25 (3d ed., Aspen 2004) [hereinafter, Hazard, The Law of Lawyering].
Ethical Duty Under ER 3.3
ER 3.3(a)(3) plainly requires an attorney to refrain from knowingly offering false evidence. Further, when an attorney later learns that he or she has offered false material evidence to a tribunal, including evidence offered directly by a client or former client,[7] the attorney must take “reasonable remedial measures, including if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” ER 3.3(a)(3); see also Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29.23 (discussing analogous section of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers (2000) which provides that duty of candor to the tribunal survives termination of the attorney-client relationship). The duty to take remedial measures lasts until “the conclusion of the proceeding.” ER 3.3 cmt. [13]. A proceeding is deemed concluded when the result of the proceeding has been upheld on appeal or the time for the appeal has otherwise expired. Id. In this case, then, the Committee must examine (1) whether Attorney “knows” that false evidence was presented, (2) whether the purportedly false evidence was offered to a “tribunal,” (3) whether the evidence was “material,” (4) what “reasonable remedial measures” are necessary under the circumstances, and (5) the duration of Attorney’s obligation to take such measures.[8]
1) Attorney’s Knowledge
Attorney here first received an indication of Client’s false testimony from a third party. Attorney then privately confronted Client about the third party’s allegations, and Client admitted the perjury in addition to other material facts. To Attorney, these admissions conclusively established the falsity of Client’s prior testimony. Thus, here there is no
dispute that Attorney now “knows” that Attorney unwittingly offered Client’s false testimony. See ER 1.0(f) (stating that “actual knowledge of the fact in question” satisfies ER’s knowledge requirement); Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 4 (stating that attorney’s “knowledge” of client’s false testimony is “ordinarily based on the client’s own admissions to the attorney”). Cf. Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29.21 (emphasizing that “knowing” of a client’s false testimony means more than a mere “suggestion” or suspicion that the client has committed perjury).
2) Definition of Tribunal
The duty found in ER 3.3 applies to all “tribunals,” not just courts of law. ER 1.0(m) defines tribunal in broad terms. It includes any administrative agency acting in an adjudicative capacity involving a neutral decision-maker who receives evidence and/or legal argument from opposing parties and is then to render a legally binding judgment affecting the parties’ interests. The appeal hearing process described earlier fits this definition of a “tribunal.” See A.R.S. § 23-671 (describing “appeal tribunal” process including requirements that tribunal be impartial, conduct a fair hearing at which “all interested parties” have an opportunity to be present and heard, and to render a decision); see also Hazard, The Law of Lawyering at § 29-3, p. 29-6 (discussing intended breadth of “tribunal”). Cf. Ill. Ethics Op. 99-04 (finding that a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge of the Social Security Administration was a “tribunal” under Illinois version of ER 3.3).
3) Material Evidence
It seems equally clear that the false testimony in this case was “material evidence.” Without recounting so much of the facts that it would in all likelihood identify Attorney and Client, Client made specific false denials under oath to directly refute the employer’s evidence. Attorney unwittingly used this false testimony to discredit the employer’s proof of Client’s dishonest behavior. Although the Committee cannot know with certainty that this evidence swayed the appeal tribunal’s decision, it must have been considered “material” to it because the false evidence went directly to points in dispute and was relevant to the proceedings and decision. See Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 4 (deeming client’s inconsistent and irreconcilable testimony in two separate proceedings material evidence).
4a) Reasonable Remedial Measures – Generally
Given Attorney’s actual knowledge of having unwittingly offered false material evidence resulting from Client’s deception, Attorney now has an ethical duty under ER 3.3(a)(3) to take “reasonable remedial measures.” The Committee stresses, however, that disclosures made pursuant to ER 3.3 should be narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to undo the effect of the tainted evidence. See ER 3.3 cmt. [10] (stating that purpose of reasonable remedial measures is to “undo the effect of the false evidence”). Cf. ER 1.6(b) & cmt. [12] (permitting disclosure of client confidences only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purposes set forth in the Rule).
Normally, the first remedial measure should be to confidentially approach and attempt to persuade the client that the client should cooperate in seeking to withdraw the false evidence. Such private remonstration should also include the advice that the attorney is ethically bound to take remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal of the false evidence. If the client agrees to seek withdrawal of the false evidence, the attorney should proceed accordingly by moving to withdraw the tainted evidence from the record but without disclosing the fact of the client’s misconduct.[9] In most circumstances this should be a sufficient reasonable remedial measure, if the timing of the withdrawal allows the tribunal to react to the change in evidence (e.g., the proceeding is still pending). If pressed for a reason why the evidence is being withdrawn, the attorney should cite client confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and, if appropriate, the client’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See ABA Formal Op. 98-412, at 2 & n.5 (recommending as one course of action the attorney’s withdrawal of the false evidence and reliance on the cited privileges).
Even if the client does not agree to the withdrawal of the evidence, the next reasonable measure generally would be for the attorney to move to withdraw the evidence from the tribunal’s consideration without the client’s consent. If an attorney can refuse to offer evidence the attorney reasonably believes to be false,[10] see ER 3.3(a)(3), there seems to be no good reason why the attorney could not move to withdraw evidence from a tribunal’s consideration that he or she knows to be false. This measure, too, should be done without revealing any client misconduct. The attorney should cite client confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and the client’s Fifth Amendment privilege, if appropriate, should the tribunal insist upon an explanation why the attorney is seeking withdrawal of the evidence. Again, whether this might be a sufficient remedial measure depends on whether the tribunal could effectively react if it grants the motion to withdraw the evidence.[11]
In cases unlike this one, where the false evidence has not been offered, but the client so intends and cannot be dissuaded from that course, another possible reasonable remedial measure might be seeking to withdraw from the representation of the client. See generally ER 1.16(b) (listing grounds for termination of the representation). Arguably, however, in some circumstances mere withdrawal from the representation may be insufficient under the present version of the Rule.[12]
When an attorney withdraws from the representation (or, as here, is discharged), the attorney may reasonably conclude that the termination of the representation will not undo the effect of the tainted evidence and so further remedial measures might be necessary. In that circumstance, the attorney should advise the client that retention of successor counsel would be in the client’s best interests because the withdrawing (or discharged) attorney has a duty to take reasonable remedial measures including possibly informing the tribunal of the false evidence.[13]
If neither withdrawal of the evidence nor termination of the representation would effectively remediate the fraud, the attorney should consider disclosing the client’s misconduct to the tribunal. This drastic step should be taken only after all other
reasonable measures have first been tried and failed or carefully considered and rejected. The Committee believes that in most instances an attorney’s motion to withdraw evidence should be sufficient to remediate the fraud because such a motion is reasonably calculated to sufficiently warn the tribunal of the situation concerning the unreliability of the false evidence and “the tribunal would no longer be powerless to defend itself against” it. Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29-21, p. 29-35. Disclosure of the client’s misconduct (as opposed to putting the tribunal on notice that certain evidence should not be considered as part of the record) would seem to be rarely, if at all, necessary to undo “the effect of the false evidence,” the goal behind requiring remedial measures.
Thus, and unless the ethical obligation under ER 3.3 has run its time limit, an attorney is ethically obligated to “make such disclosure to the tribunal as is reasonably necessary to remedy the situation” even if to do so would otherwise contravene ER 1.6. ER 3.3 cmt. [10]. Further, the fact that a client may ultimately face a prosecution for perjury is not a reason for an attorney to withhold disclosure. See ER 3.3 cmt. [11]; see also Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 4 (stating that if a lawyer has “knowledge” of a client’s perjury in a proceeding in which the lawyer represented the client, then ER 3.3 requires disclosure to the tribunal if intermediate remedial measures prove ineffective).
4b) Reasonable Remedial Measures In This Case
Assuming Attorney’s duty under ER 3.3 has not terminated because the proceedings have concluded (see 5b infra), Attorney has some reasonable remedial measures still available. As noted earlier, Attorney has already privately remonstrated Client. This effort was unsuccessful. Despite Attorney’s appropriate efforts to convince Client to take proper remedial measures, Client rejected that advice and discharged Attorney. The fact of that discharge limits the remaining available remedial measures.
First, because Attorney is no longer counsel of record, Attorney cannot move the tribunal to withdraw the tainted evidence from the proceedings even without Client’s consent. Second, Attorney can no longer move to withdraw from the representation. Even if withdrawal of the representation were possible in this case, however, it would not be a “reasonable remedial measure” because Attorney’s withdrawal by itself would not cure the fraud by undoing the effect of the tainted evidence.
In these circumstances, the Committee believes Attorney should consider as an option enlisting the aid of Client’s present legal counsel, if any. See Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 120, cmt. h (2000) (“If a lawyer is discharged by a client or withdraws . . . the lawyer’s obligations [of candor to the tribunal] under this Section are not thereby terminated. In such an instance, a reasonable remedial measure may consist of disclosing the matter to successor counsel.”). Although this would not relieve Attorney of Attorney’s own ethical obligations to the tribunal under ER 3.3, the combined efforts of former and successor counsel in private remonstrance with Client may persuade Client to consent to seek withdrawal of the false evidence. In addition, because Attorney is no longer Client’s counsel of record, only successor counsel of record, if any, can move to withdraw the tainted evidence without Client’s consent. Should this step succeed either
because the Client ultimately relents and allows any successor counsel to move to withdraw the false evidence or because any successor counsel so moves even without Client’s consent, Attorney would have taken a reasonable remedial measure sufficient to undo the effect of the tainted evidence and, thus, satisfied Attorney’s personal obligations under ER 3.3(a)(3) notwithstanding that Attorney did not personally inform the tribunal.[14]
If there is no successor counsel of record, Attorney’s only apparent option is to inform the tribunal by letter (with a copy to Client) that specific evidence is unreliable.[15] Again, such a step should normally not include an express revelation of Client’s misconduct. The Committee is of the opinion that in this case such a communication would be an effective remedial measure while not disclosing more than what is necessary to undo the effect of the false evidence.[16]
This case also presents the related question of the proper “tribunal” Attorney should notify. The Committee believes that the proper entity is that entity which has jurisdiction of the proceeding at the time the disclosure is made. Thus, Attorney must determine, by examining the appropriate statutes, rules, and case law, whether the original examiner, hearing officer, or any subsequent entity is the appropriate “tribunal” to which to make any disclosures.
5a) Duration of Ethical Obligation – Generally
ER 3.3(c) makes clear that the ethical obligation to take reasonable remedial measures survives the end of the attorney-client relationship. The ethical obligation terminates only when the tainted proceedings have concluded. If the time for appeal or other review has not yet expired and there has not yet been a final decision on the matter, then the ethical obligation to inform the tribunal exists. ER 3.3(c) & cmt. [13]. Otherwise, the duty to take remedial measures no longer exists because the proceedings would be deemed to have concluded.
5b) Duration Of Ethical Obligation In This Case
In this particular instance, Attorney must learn whether the proceedings have reached their “conclusion.” Whether proceedings have concluded is ultimately a legal question. Certainly, if the original appeal of the tribunal decision to award compensation is still under active review, either by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board or the judiciary, the proceeding is not concluded and Attorney’s ethical obligation to take reasonable remedial measures continues.
If that decision is no longer under review, but Client is still receiving benefits which can be modified at any time, then the proceeding may not be concluded, and Attorney’s ethical obligation may continue. See Kan. Op. 98-01 (requiring a lawyer to take remedial measures where the lawyer learned of a client’s false testimony made in a workmen’s compensation proceeding and the client was still receiving benefits which could be modified at any time).
If however, as Attorney believes, Client is no longer receiving unemployment compensation and the unemployment case is now closed, Attorney’s ethical duties have terminated regardless of whether the proceeding could be re-opened at any future time or a new and separate proceeding could be instituted against Client for the recovery of previously paid compensation. Otherwise, there would never be a conclusion to these types of administrative proceedings, and the Committee believes that such an open-ended ethical obligation would be inconsistent with the “practical time limit” intended by ER 3.3(c). See ER 3.3 cmt. [13].
Accordingly, Attorney should ascertain the present procedural posture of Client’s award and then consult applicable statutes, rules, and case law to determine if the proceeding is concluded. See generally Casillas v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Security, 739 P.2d 800, 802 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986) (discussing the finality of DES decisions); Rogers v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Security, 644 P.2d 292, 293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982) (same).
CONCLUSION
Unless the proceedings are deemed concluded (e.g., an appeal ended or the time to take an appeal has expired), an attorney in a civil proceeding must take reasonable remedial measures upon learning that he or she has unwittingly offered false material evidence due to a client’s deception. The duty to take such measures applies only when the attorney has actual knowledge of the false evidence and the evidence is material. Reasonable remedial measures are to be taken in steps and should be no broader than necessary to undo the effect of the tainted evidence. The first step should normally be a private consultation with the client explaining the need to withdraw the tainted evidence and advising that the attorney has a duty to take remedial steps even if the client refuses.
Failing that attempt at counseling, the attorney’s second step should be to seek withdrawal of the evidence from the tribunal’s consideration without the client’s consent. The attorney can cite ethical obligations as the reason for seeking withdrawal of the evidence, but should normally not inform the tribunal of the client’s misconduct (e.g., that the client committed perjury), if such a withdrawal of the evidence would undo the effect of the false evidence. In that circumstance, an attorney must also consider whether he or she has a conflict of interest with the client necessitating an attempt to withdraw from the representation.
As a last step and only if no other steps would undo the effect of the false evidence, an attorney must make an explicit disclosure of the client’s misconduct to the tribunal. In addition, if an attorney has terminated, or been discharged from, a representation and the former client has retained successor counsel, the former attorney should consider whether involving successor counsel would be part of an appropriate remedial measure.
_________
[1] Formal Opinions of the Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct are advisory in nature only and are not binding in any disciplinary or other legal proceedings. © State Bar of Arizona 2003
[2] In keeping with the Committee’s confidentiality policy, identification information is omitted. See State Bar of Arizona Comm. on the Rules of Prof’l Conduct, STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL POLICIES 5 (Jan. 20, 2000).
[3] This opinion does not address a lawyer’s option to voluntarily reveal client confidences reasonably necessary to prevent a client from committing certain crimes or frauds. See ER 1.6(d) (1) – (2).
[4] All citations to the Ethical Rules and related Comments are to 17A Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann., Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42 (West 2004).
[5] This opinion does not address whether an attorney has any legal duty to protect confidential client communications. See A.R.S. § 12-2234 (establishing attorney-client privilege in civil proceedings); A.R.S. § 13-4062(2) (establishing attorney-client privilege in criminal proceedings). Opinions on the law are beyond the Committee’s jurisdiction. State Bar of Arizona Comm. on the Rules of Prof’l Conduct, STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL POLICIES 6(a) (Jan. 20, 2000).
[6] This opinion does not concern an attorney’s ethical duties upon learning of a client’s false testimony made during the course of a criminal proceeding. Criminal proceedings present legal and constitutional issues not applicable in civil matters. See generally Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986); ER 3.3 cmt. [7] (citing State v. Jefferson, 126 Ariz. 341 (1980), and Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1978), and recognizing that some courts have held that the duties imposed by ER 3.3 “is subordinate” to constitutional considerations present in criminal proceedings); Geoffrey C. Hazard & W. William Hodes, Jr., 2 The Law of Lawyering §§ 29-15 – 29-20 (3d ed., Aspen 2004) (discussing client perjury in context of criminal case representation); Ariz. Op. 2000-02, at 6-8 (same).
[7] An attorney owes similar ethical duties of confidentiality to former clients as to existing clients. ER 1.9(c).
[8] Because each of the five elements must be present to trigger the duty under ER 3.3(a)(3), each element is potentially a “threshold” element, i.e., an element which if not present renders it unnecessary to determine the existence of the remaining elements. Because the Committee seeks to provide guidance to members on all the elements, the Committee chooses to discuss all of them notwithstanding that in this case Attorney’s duty may have lapsed due to the “conclusion” of the proceedings.” See Parts 5a and 5b, infra.
[9] The Committee envisions in most cases such a motion being made to the tribunal with notice to all appropriate parties. This opinion does not condone inappropriate ex parte
communications with a tribunal. See ER 3.5(b) (prohibiting unauthorized ex parte communications).
[10] This right to refuse to offer such evidence does not extend to the testimony of a criminal defendant. See ER 3.3(a)(3).
[11] Whether the lawyer’s withdrawal of evidence without the client’s consent creates a conflict of interest under ER 1.7(a)(2) is something the lawyer placed in that situation must determine on a case by case basis. See ER 1.16(b) (describing when an attorney may terminate a representation).
[12] The Committee recognizes that an argument could be made that even if an attorney had forewarning of a client’s intent to perpetrate a fraud on a tribunal, mere withdrawal may be insufficient. ER 3.3(b) requires an attorney to “take reasonable remedial measures” when the attorney “knows that a person intends to engage” in “criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.” Under a prior version of the rule, a simple withdrawal would have been sufficient because the rule only forbade an attorney from “assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.” ER 3.3(a)(2) (1998). Thus, mere withdrawal was sufficient under that Rule because the attorney was no longer “assisting” the client. See ABA Formal Op. 98-412. Under present ER 3.3(b), however, an attorney is no longer simply required to “avoid assisting” the client but appears to have an affirmative duty to warn the court of the impending fraud if mere withdrawal would not deter the client. Because Attorney has already been discharged in this case, however, this opinion need not address this issue.
[13] In cases involving the termination of the representation and notwithstanding that an attorney may have concluded that further reasonable remedial measures are necessary under ER 3.3(a)(3), the attorney nonetheless owes the former client ethical duties under ER 1.9 and ER 4.3 (if no successor counsel is retained) to the extent those duties are not superseded by ER 3.3(a)(3).
[14] The facts of any given case may lead to the reasonable conclusion that not involving successor counsel and, instead, informing the tribunal directly would be the remedial measure that undoes the effect of the tainted evidence while doing the least harm to a former client. Thus, attorneys who have terminated, or been discharged from, a representation should consider whether contacting any successor counsel or directly informing the relevant tribunal best fulfills the ethical obligations under ER 3.3 while doing the least damage to the former client’s case.
[15] Whether the tribunal chooses to inform the opposing counsel and party remains a decision for the tribunal and subject to any legal and ethical requirements operating on the tribunal.
[16] There is no talismanic language for the contents of such a letter. So long as the letter is reasonably calculated to put the tribunal on notice that certain evidence is unreliable and that Attorney would not have offered the evidence if Attorney had known of certain
facts at the time Attorney introduced the evidence, the Committee believes that Attorney’s ethical obligations are satisfied.
ER 8.4 . Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official; or
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
ER 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of a material fact or law to a third person;
ER 8.4 Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: * * * (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation; REGULATION OF NONLAWYERS
There are times when people will tell you they can give you legal advice. Caution: Only Arizona lawyers can advise you about your legal rights in this state. The following questions and answers help explain more about the unauthorized practice of law.
Jump to Unauthorized Practice of Law Advisory Opinions
Legal action taken against non-lawyers
Who regulates the conduct of non-lawyers when they are acting like lawyers? Rule 31 of the Arizona Supreme Court gives the State Bar of Arizona the authority to investigate allegations of unauthorized practice of law and to file and prosecute actions and proceedings related to such activities. The State Bar of Arizona acts as the prosecutor in unauthorized cases, files the cases with the superior courts, and trials are held before judges of the superior courts.
The Board of Certified Legal Document Preparers has the authority to investigate and prosecute actions and proceedings against Certified Legal Document Preparers.
Which organization has jurisdiction over the practice of law? The Arizona Supreme Court affirms its jurisdiction over the practice of law in Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules. The Supreme Court of Arizona has the inherent authority to regulate and prevent the practice of law by individuals who are not admitted to practice law in Arizona.
What is the "practice of law?" The practice of law is defined by Arizona Supreme Court Rule. Rule 31(a)2B states: Practice of law means providing legal advice or services to another by: •Preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal rights for a specific person or entity; •Preparing or expressing legal opinions; •Representing another in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process such as arbitrations and mediations; •Preparing any document through any medium for filing in any court, administrative agency or tribunal for a specific person or entity; or •Negotiating legal rights or responsibilities for a specific person or entity.
What is the "unauthorized practice of law?" The unauthorized practice of law is defined by Arizona Supreme Court Rule. Rule 31(a)2A states: Unauthorized practice of law includes but is not limited to: •Engaging in the practice of law by persons or entities not authorized to practice pursuant to to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d); or •Using the designations "lawyer," "attorney at law," counselor at law," "law," "law office," "J.D.," "Esq.," or other equivalent words by any person or entity not authorized to practice pursuant to to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant
to Rule 33(d), the use of which is reasonably likely to induce others to believe that the person or entity is authorized to engage in the practice of law in this state.
Who can practice law in Arizona? Only active members of the State Bar of Arizona and other persons who comply with the Arizona Supreme Court's rules regarding the practice of law may practice law in Arizona.
Who can provide legal advice in Arizona? Only attorneys admitted to the State Bar of Arizona may provide legal advice in Arizona.
What are "certified legal document preparers?"The Legal Document Preparer Program certifies legal document preparers in Arizona. Legal Document Prepares are certified individuals who prepare or provide legal documents without the supervision of an attorney. Legal Document Preparers may provide general legal information but may not give legal advice. Effective July 1, 2003, all individuals and businesses preparing legal documents without the supervision of an attorney in good standing with the State Bar of Arizona, must be certified pursuant to Rule 31 and Arizona Code of Judicial Administration §7-208.
What is the Consumer Protection Committee? The Consumer Protection Committee’s mission is to protect consumers from harm caused by the unauthorized practice of law. The Committee is responsible for evaluating and proposing rules to regulate the unauthorized practice of law, educating the public about UPL, providing affirmative support for effective and accountable delivery of legal services, and contributing to CLE programs.
What should I do if I am harmed by a non-lawyer acting like a lawyer? Today, the State Bar of Arizona has the authority to bring an action to enforce rules regarding non-lawyers engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. You may wish to file a complaint regarding the conduct of the non-lawyer. The State Bar will review the allegations and determine whether it is appropriate to prosecute the individual who appears to be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law or the Bar may refer, coordinate, and assist the investigation and prosecution of the matter by the Office of the Attorney General, United States Bankruptcy Trustees, Certified Legal Document Preparer Program or other agencies.
How do I make a complaint to the State Bar of Arizona? You may make allegations regarding the unlicensed practice of law by contacting the unauthorized practice of law attorney for the State Bar of Arizona at 4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, or by telephone at 602-340-7292. Your complaint must be in writing, preferably on a Bar form. If a Bar form is not used, be certain to tell the Bar your name, address and phone number as well as the name, address and phone number of the non-lawyer if you have that information. Then try to set forth the facts on which your allegations are based. Attach copies of any court papers, documents, letters or other materials that pertain to your allegations when you write the Bar office. Please do not send the original documents. Otherwise, you can obtain a complaint form by calling 602-340-7292 or requesting one via e-mail.
How do I make a complaint about a Certified Legal Document Preparer? You can make a complaint about a Certified Legal Document Preparer by completing the complaint form found on the Certified Legal Document Preparer's Web site.
If I suffer a loss as a result of the unauthorized practice of law, can the the State Bar get my money back? The State Bar is authorized to seek restitution in appropriate cases. If a lawsuit is filed, the State Bar will seek restitution but it will not seek to recover money damages for you. The State Bar seeks in its lawsuits to enjoin the unauthorized practice of law in the future. Sometimes as a result of a an unauthorized practice of law investigation, the complaint is resolved by an agreement with the respondent that includes restitution to the complaining person. However, the State Bar cannot promise such a result.
What happens after I file a complaint? All matters received by the State Bar of Arizona are reviewed by Bar UPL Counsel to determine if the Bar has jurisdiction to investigate the allegations. If the State Bar of Arizona has jurisdiction, the inquiry is considered as a complaint. The complaint may be referred to an investigator of the State Bar for investigation or may be investigated by UPL Counsel. If the Bar determines that there is probable cause, the complaint may be prosecuted in Superior Court.
Will the non-lawyer know about my complaint? Probably. The nonlawyer may be sent a copy of your complaint during the course of the investigation. Additionally, if the nonlawyer asks who complained, your name will be given. Anonymity will only be granted in extreme circumstances and should be discussed with the UPL attorney before filing a complaint.
What will filing an inquiry against a non-lawyer cost me? No cost or fee is charged for filing an inquiry against a non-lawyer. All members of the State Bar of Arizona are required to pay dues which cover the cost of the unlicensed practice of law program. You may, however, be required to devote some of your time to attending hearings and testifying at trial. When the superior court issues an injunction, the non-lawyer may be ordered to pay the costs involved.
Are the records regarding cases against non-lawyers open to the public? The Supreme Court Rules permits disclosure of certain information. This rule must be consulted to determine what information is available to the public.
Will there be a trial? If the State Bar recommends litigation, UPL Counsel will file a formal complaint against the non-lawyer before the superior court. If there is no agreement reached by the State Bar and the non-lawyer there will be a trial on the complaint.
The judge of the Superior Court will hear all relevant evidence, which may include the complainant's testimony, that of the non-lawyer and any other witnesses. The judge then reaches a decision and files an order. The order may enjoin the non-lawyer from further activity and award restitution and cost.
What is the purpose of the investigation and prosecution of the unauthorized practice of law? The purpose of the unauthorized practice of law system is to protect the public. The State Bar of Arizona and the courts can prevent an individual or company from continuing to engage in the unauthorized practice of law by issuing a civil injunction or by entering into an agreement to cease and desist engaging in the practice of law. Supreme Court Rules permits disclosure of certain information.
The State Bar of Arizona, as a prosecutorial agency, does not and cannot give individual legal service or advice to any person making allegations. Nor can the State Bar of Arizona assist you in getting money damages.
However, the court may require restitution as part of its judgment. Any other loss you may have sustained as a result of the conduct of the non-lawyer cannot be recovered through a Bar unlicensed practice of law proceeding. If you have suffered a financial or property loss, your rights must be enforced by the usual legal methods against the person responsible for the loss.
In addition, the Arizona Bar has no authority to review a court decision on a particular matter and the Bar's unauthorized practice of law system should never be used as a substitute for an appeal of such cases.
What kinds of actions can be taken against a non-lawyer? If the UPL attorney and the State Bar determine that the conduct does not involve the unlicensed practice of law, that it is an isolated incident which will not be repeated and will not result in a likelihood of future public harm, that the individual is no longer in Arizona or that the complaining party does not wish to cooperate with the investigation, the State Bar will close the case.
If the UPL attorney and the State Bar of Arizona determine that the individual did engage in the unlicensed practice of law and that the activity is likely to continue, the State Bar may request that the individual sign a cease and desist agreement that can be entered as an order of the court. The non-lawyer will acknowledge that the conduct is the unlicensed practice of law and will agree to refrain from engaging in the conduct in the future.
If the conduct involves the unlicensed practice of law and the individual will not sign a cease and desist agreement, the UPL attorney and State Bar can recommend prosecution. Prosecution is before the superior court and seeks a civil injunction which orders the non-lawyer to stop engaging in UPL. The Bar can also bring an action before the Superior Court for contempt.
If the conduct of the non-lawyer appears to be a violation of the consumer fraud statute, the matter may also be referred to the Office of the Attorney General for their review and investigation. If the conduct of the non-lawyer appears to violate Section 110 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the matter may also be referred to U. S. Bankruptcy Trustees.
Complaints that allege unauthorized practice of law in the area of immigration may be referred to the Office of the Attorney General for their review and investigation. Unauthorized Practice of Law in immigration matters is a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes that make such practice a felony.
What can I expect if I file an inquiry against a non-lawyer? • You can expect that your inquiry will receive the State Bar of Arizona's prompt and full attention. • You can expect that every attempt will be made to deal with your inquiry in a manner which is fair to both you and the individual about whom you inquire. • You can expect to receive written notice of the status and disposition of your complaint.
What shouldn't I expect if I file an inquiry against a non-lawyer? Don't expect your allegation to be decided just because of what you claim to have happened. Nor, in fairness to you, can the non-lawyer about whom you inquire expect the matter to be decided just on the basis of his or her version of what happened. The final decision must depend upon the weight of the available and relevant evidence and testimony.
What should I know about immunity and confidentiality? Once an inquiry is reviewed and a file is opened, the fact that a complaint is pending and the status of the complaint can be disclosed. Once the matter is closed or proceeds to with prosecution, the matter becomes public information and the part of the file defined as the UPL record is available to anyone who wishes to see it. Review of files is available only during specific days and at certain times. You should contact the State Bar of Arizona to determine when files will be available. A fee for review and/or copies is required.
You and witnesses are not prohibited from talking about your problem with the non-lawyer or revealing that you have made an inquiry with the State Bar of Arizona. You may also give others copies of any documents you give to or receive from the State Bar or the non-lawyer involved.
Because inquiries and complaints are not confidential, you do not have absolute immunity from suit for filing your inquiry. The general law of libel and slander applies. Regrettably, the State Bar cannot pre-review your inquiry to tell you if you have a good case. Generally, you cannot be successfully sued if you do not act in bad faith or with malice. If you are unsure, you should seek independent legal advice.
Unauthorized Practice of Law Advisory Opinions
The State Bar’s UPL (Unauthorized Practice of Law) Advisory Committee now provides attorneys and consumers with non-binding written advisory opinions. The opinions interpret the UPL Supreme Court Rules and the Certified Legal Document Preparer Code.
Summaries of Recent Opinions
About the UPL Advisory CommitteeThe UPL Advisory Committee issues written advisory opinions. All opinions rendered are non-binding and advisory only, based on the Committee's reading of the Arizona Supreme Court Rules regarding the Practice of Law and the Certified Legal Document Preparer Code. Although non-binding, these opinions constitute an important resource for Arizona attorneys and the public to identify applicable rules, point out relevant UPL
Advisory opinions, provide other resources, and give guidance on practice of law questions.
Request a UPL OpinionThe request for a written advisory opinion must be in writing, and either mailed, faxed, or hand-delivered to an office of the State Bar of Arizona. The request should include all of the operative facts upon which the request for opinion is based, and identify the specific unauthorized practice of law question. Please include the name and address of the person, and organization where relevant. The Committee will not consider or issue advisory opinions for matters pending in any Arizona court or other tribunal; however, it may requests as to pending issues from a court or tribunal directly.
For More InformationContact Karen Boehmer, Unauthorized Practice of Law Attorney for the State Bar of Arizona at 602-340-7266, or e-mail [email protected].
Mailing address:Unauthorized Practice of Law AttorneyState Bar of Arizona4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 200Phoenix, AZ 85016