Ethics Q&A
Q: Is it per se unethical in Arizona for a lawyer to charge an "earned upon receipt" or "nonrefundable" fee?

A: No. However, the new ethics rules require that if a lawyer charges such a fee, the lawyer must inform the client in writing that (1) the client has the right to discharge the lawyer at any time, and (2) in that event a refund of all or part of the fee may be required, based on the value of the services rendered.
Read ER 1.5(d)(3)

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.

A New Citation Manual
A new manual by the Association of Legal Writing Directors is gaining followers. Here's what you need to know about its approach. Read the article.

All For You...

Touting your expertise helps you stand out to potential clients! Become a Certified Legal Specialist. Call 602-340-7327 for more information.

Read back issues of eLegal.
| Disclaimer | Feedback |
| About eLegal |
Copyright 2004
State Bar of Arizona

Land Use Updates Reform, Growth, NIMBYism
Smart growth, a big concern for Arizona and its attorneys, is the focal point of an all-day cutting-edge seminar on June 25, 2004. More info.

AzbarMail: Learn more about new e-mail service for members only.

Legal Links

Lawyer Jobs Available


Legal Dictionary

Legal Resources

Expert and Consultant Directory

Member Benefits


In which format would you like to receive this eNewsletter in the future, plain text or text w/graphics? Check the appropriate box below:

Text w/Graphics(HTML)

Plain Text

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.

Federal Courts Get OK to Hear State Tax Cases
Federal judges can decide whether to block state tax breaks, such as the one that helps fund tuition to religious and other private schools in Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled. Read more.

Supreme Court Rejects Pledge Case
The U.S. Supreme Court said atheist Michael Newdow does not have legal standing to challenge the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Read more.

O'Connor Honored at State Bar Convention
While accepting the State Bar's Distinguished Career Award, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor remembered Ronald Reagan, who nominated her to be the first woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Read more.

State Bar Board Has New President, Members
Chas Wirken becomes State Bar President and members elect seven attorneys to serve on the Board of Governors. Read more.

Court of Appeals Announces Policy on Requests to Publish Decisions
A new policy regarding requests to publish memorandum decisions goes into effect at Divisions One and Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Read more.

Court Adopts Multijurisdictional Practice Rules
The Arizona Supreme Court modified the ethics rules to allow lawyers to practice across state lines in limited circumstances. Read the Court's order and Rules.

Read the other rules adopted by the Supreme Court at their June 1 meeting.

Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One Division Two

June 8, 2004 - CV 03-0627 - JLP v. AHCCCS
When medical evidence is to the contrary, is a health insurance carrier required by law to provide a woman additional surgery because she believes that prior surgeries have not resulted in the symmetrical appearance of her breasts? Read opinion.

June 7, 2004 - 2 CA-CV 2003-0136 - Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus
Absent an express contractual obligation, is an appraiser employed by a lender liable to a purchaser of real property for a negligently prepared appraisal? Read opinion.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals
June 9, 2004 - No. 03-15442 - Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart
Two minor children conceived by in-vitro fertilization after their father's death are entitled to insurance benefits under the Social Security Act because they are their father's legitimate children and thus his dependants under Arizona law. Read opinion.

June 8, 2004 - No. 03-10194 - U.S. v. Ford
Where defendant had already been acquitted for "knowingly opening" real estate for the purpose of distributing cocaine, the government is collaterally stopped from later prosecuting the defendant for "managing and controlling" drug-dealing purposes. Read opinion.