Q: May I ask my client, in my fee agreement, to give me authority to decide whether to settle the client's case if the client disappears or I can't communicate with the client?

A: No. Among other problems, such a blanket advance authorization conflicts with ER 1.2, which requires an attorney to abide by the client's decisions about settlement. Read Ethics Op. 06-07.

Miranda in 2006
Miranda v. Arizona may be the law of the land, but how much influence does it have in police practice? Read more.


Disclaimer | About eLegal | Feedback
Copyright 2006
State Bar of Arizona

County Courts to Put Millions of Paper Records into Computers
This winter, thousands of pages of court documents could be headed for the shredder as Maricopa County's court files are going electronic. Read more.

Firm Leader Forecast: Mostly Sunny
According to a new survey in The American Lawyer, firm leaders are optimistic about their firms' futures and expect financial growth. Read more.

Supreme Court Rules Buttons at Trial Didn't Bias Jury
Murder trial spectators were free to wear buttons with a picture of the victim in front of the jury that convicted his killer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday. Read more.

Time To Get Creative
The annual Creative Arts Competition has kicked off at Arizona Attorney magazine. Enter more than one work, and more than one category, no form or cover letter required. Here are the categories and deadline.

Bar Web Site Wins Award
The State Bar's members Web site, myazbar.org, has received two awards from the International Academy of Visual Arts. Read more.

State Bar Collects Toys for Tots
The State Bar of Arizona is a collection site for Toys for Tots. We are accepting new, unwrapped toys to benefit local needy children at the State Bar offices at 4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 200. Donations will be accepted through December 20.

Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
| Division Two

November 7, 2006 – IC 06-0011 – Morse v. Industrial Commission
Did the Administrative Law Judge err by failing to consider the claimant's prospective wages from a new employer, for whom she had not yet begun to work, in setting the average monthly wage? Read opinion.

December 7, 2006 – 2 CA-SA 2006-0075 – Smith v. Smith
Was the petitioner entitled to a peremptory change of judge pursuant to Rule 42(f)(1)(E), Ariz. R. Civ. P. after this court reversed the trial court's erroneous division of marital property and remanded the matter for a new determination of law and fact under the correct legal standard? Read opinion.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

December 5, 2006 – No. 04-15044 – Doe v. Kamehameha Schools
A Hawaiian private, non-profit K-12 school that receives no federal funds does not violate 42 U.S.C. section 1981 by preferring Native Hawaiians in its admissions policy. A modified Title VII standard is established for determining whether a wholly private K-12 educational institution's remedial admissions policy is valid. Read opinion.

December 6, 2006 – No. 03-56093 – Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Grant of plaintiff's motion to remand in a suit brought against Costco is reversed where the district court had no discretion to remand the claims to state court because, once a case has been properly removed, the district court has jurisdiction over it on all grounds apparent from the complaint, not just those cited in the removal notice. Read opinion.

Build Your Arizona Practice
One or two-day program geared to new attorneys and new-to-Arizona attorneys, takes place Jan. 11-12, 2007. Read more.

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.