 |
||||||
| Summer 2009 | Summer 2008 | Summer 2006 | Summer 2005 | Fall/Winter 2004
ETHICS NEWS - FALL/WINTER 2004
Ethical Rule 1.13 is Changing – The Rule regarding representing an entity changes effective December 1, 2004 to require a lawyer to communicate with the highest authority in an organization when the lawyer believes someone within the entity is engaging in criminal conduct that may cause serious harm to the entity. The lawyer MAY disclose confidential information about the conduct outside of the entity only if: 1) the highest authority fails to take timely and appropriate action to address the violation of law; and 2) the lawyer reasonably believes the violation of law is certain to cause “substantial injury to the organization.” For the complete text of the change see: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/rules/ramd_pdf/r-04-0006.pdf
Ethical Rule 5.5 is Changing – ER 5.5, regarding the Unauthorized Practice of Law, changes as of December 1, 2004 to permit temporary practice in Arizona by out-of-state lawyers for certain situations, including pre-litigation when either associating local counsel or in anticipation of filing a pro hac vice application, and when the representation of a client in Arizona is reasonably related to the representation in the lawyer’s home licensing jurisdiction. Out-of-state lawyers may not establish an office or a systematic and continuous presence in Arizona. They also must notify clients that they are not admitted in Arizona. Full text of the amended Rule is on: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/rules/ramd_pdf/r-03-0035.pdf
Cursing and Belligerence Disciplined – The Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission is recommending a censure for a lawyer who used obscenities in communicating with a client’s treating physician’s office and with justice court personnel. The Respondent also engaged in “abusive” conduct in a telephonic hearing with a superior court judge. The Commission found the conduct violated Supreme Court Rule 41(g), which requires that lawyers refrain from all “offensive personality” and that some of the conduct also violated ERs 3.5(c), 4.4, and 8.4(d). The decision is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Disciplinary Commission Report is available at: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dc/2004%20scanned/DC_Reports/Banta_DC_rpt.pdf
|
||||||