Q: Under the new ethics rules, are lawyers as advocates still required to "zealously" represent their clients?
A: No; the preamble to the new rules has deleted the word
"zealous," and now states that lawyers should conduct themselves
"honorably" at all times. Read
the new Ethics Rules.
Need ethics advice? Members of the State Bar
can get free ethics advice concerning their own prospective conduct
by calling the State Bar's Ethics Hotline at 602-340-7284.
|Talking With the Ambassador
Lawyer Hattie Babbitt has served as an ambassador to the Organization
of American States. Now she's rejoined a Phoenix firm. She spoke with
us about Iraq, the peace process and human rights. Read
SBA CLE brings you national speakers Timothy Terrell and Stephen Armstrong
via satellite on February 27!
State Bar of Arizona
Medicine for Lawyers
Don't let the medical aspects of a case throw you! This all-day seminar
on Friday, March 5, tells you what you need to know to litigate effectively.
|In which format would you like to receive this eNewsletter in
the future, plain text or text w/graphics? Check the appropriate box
You are receiving this message because the State Bar of Arizona believes
you will benefit from this information. If you would like to unsubscribe
to this mailing, please click here.
9th Circuit Clarifies Feds' Charging Power
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that judges can't
nix pleas if they later decide they don't like the sentencing conditions
included in the plea bargain.
Court Keeps Terror Suspect From Seeing Lawyer
The Supreme Court granted the government's request to keep a terrorism
suspect from seeing his lawyer, at least until the justices decide
what rights other "enemy combatants" are afforded. Read more.
Follow-up: Minority Applicants Down at Michigan
Seven months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the University
of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy, the number
of applications from blacks, Hispanics and American Indians is down
23 percent. Read more.
LEGISLATIVE ALERT - Your Action Needed
This Thursday, February 12, several bills that would impair the
functioning of Arizona's courts will be heard in the House Judiciary
Committee. Two new bills were added late yesterday. Your action is
urgently needed if you are interested in weighing in on these issues,
all of which impact the independence of the judiciary. Read
And the Oscar Goes to...
Here's your chance to see that your colleagues, deserving of recognition,
receive their just rewards. Nominations for the annual State Bar
awards are being accepted now through March 22. Read
Conflict Case Committee Openings
Committee members timely process, investigate and prosecute all
aspects of disciplinary cases involving a member of the Board of
Governors, Bar staff, Supreme Court Disciplinary Hearing Officers
or Disciplinary Commission. Application deadline is March 1st. Read
February 3, 2004 - CV 02-0736 - Speros v. Yu
Whether title to an abandoned roadway within a subdivision should
be divided between the abutting landowners or given to the current
owner of the lot that originally included the roadway land. Read opinion.
February 6, 2004 - 2 CA-SA 2003-0107 - Chartone Inc. v. Mercaldo,
Ltd. et al.
Absent an agreement by the parties, do article VI, �24 of the Arizona
Constitution and Rule 53, Ariz. R. Civ. P., 16 A.R.S., Pt. 1, authorize
a trial judge to appoint a special master to calculate the plaintiffs'
damages after a jury had found the defendants liable? 2. Did the
trial court violate the defendants' rights to a jury trial by vacating
the damages phase of a bifurcated trial and appointing a special
master to calculate the plaintiffs' damages? Read opinion.
February 6, 2004 - No. 01-35764 - Childress v. Darby Lumber
Because defendants operated as a single employer for purposes of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and because they
jointly employed more than 100 people, they were required to provide
60 days' advance notice of the plant closing that resulted in mass
layoffs. Read opinion.
February 05, 2004 - No. 03-30101 - US v. Johnson
Defendant is accountable for all the methamphetamine originally
placed in the package and shipped to him, even though he never received
most of it. His relevant conduct was ordering a controlled substance,
checking on the package, and receiving it when it was delivered.