Q: I'm getting lots of work due to my marketing, so I'm going to hire an associate. May I make the associate agree to reimburse me for marketing costs if the associate leaves and takes any of my cases?

A: No. Doing so would violate the policy underlying ER 5.6 that puts the commercial interests of law firms secondary to the need to preserve client choice. Read Ethics Op. 09-01.

Save time and money by expediting the creation and processing of subpoenas.

Search/Seizure After Gant
Our authors examine whether Gant is the biggest criminal procedure case since Miranda. Read more.


Disclaimer | About eLegal | Feedback
Copyright 2009
State Bar of Arizona

Outside Counsel Spending Projected to Drop by 4.3 Percent Next Year
A new study projects a 4.3 percent slide in corporate spending on outside counsel next year, on top of this year's 10.8 percent drop. Read more.

Associate Salaries: The War is Over
It goes without saying that the associate salary wars are over. Firms have responded to a drop in business and a glut of talent with salary freezes, salary cuts or even a wholesale revamping of their pay scales. Read more.

Why Law Firm Interviewers Are Asking 'Tell Me About a Time' Questions
Law firms with fewer spots for new associates are getting serious about on-campus interviews, sending more senior people to meet with potential new hires and using behavioral questions to learn more about students' personalities. Read more.

Proposed Revisions to Criminal Jury Instructions
The State Bar's Criminal Jury Instructions Committee has completed revisions to Criminal Jury Instructions based on legislation passed during the last Arizona legislative session and suggestions from lawyers and judicial officers. The committee will seek approval of the instructions at the Board of Governors' November meeting. Comments should be sent before Nov. 13 to Ilona.Kukan@staff.azbar.org. Read more.

Arizona Attorney to Co-Sponsor Program on Constitutional Interpretation with Rehnquist Center on Oct. 26
Arizona Attorney magazine will co-sponsor an Oct. 26 program, the Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation, with the William H. Rehnquist Center. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer will participate in the program. Online registration began Oct. 1. Read more.

Building Your Connections Networking Event on Nov. 5
Bring your business cards, appetite and love of art to the State Bar's joint networking event with the Arizona Society of CPAs on Nov. 5 at the Tempe Center for the Arts. Read more.

New Exhibit on Sandra Day O'Connor
The Arizona Historical Society Museum at Papago Park presents the story of Arizona native Sandra Day O'Connor in the upcoming exhibition, Sandra Day O'Connor - A Citizen for All Seasons. The exhibition opens on Oct. 22. Read more.

Free In-Depth Fastcase Training on Oct. 15 May Qualify for CLE Credit
Fastcase will hold an Oct. 15 online class on conducting in-depth research that may qualify for CLE credit. The State Bar of Arizona offers free, unlimited access to Fastcase as a benefit to members. Read more.

Apply to U.S. Supreme Court Bar
The Federal Bar Association will host a swearing-in ceremony for admission to the U.S. Supreme Court bar in January. Applications must be received by November 25, 2009. Read more.

Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
| Division Two

October 8, 2009 - CV 07-0453 - A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Maricopa
1.Does Arizona recognize a claim for inverse eminent domain based on in the context of the threat of future flooding?
2. Did the trial court err in denying the farmers' motion for JMOL on their inverse eminent domain claim?
3. Did the farmers prove a prima facie negligence claim?
4. Were the farmers entitled to damages based on the reduced value of their land as a result of the threat of future flooding?
5. Did the trial court err by failing to require the farmers to prove individualized damages?
6. Was the district entitled to sovereign immunity under Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-820.01 (absolute immunity) and 26-314 (emergency management immunity?
7. Was the district entitled to an assumption of the risk jury instruction?
8. Was the district entitled to assert that the U.S. Corps of Engineers was a non-party at fault?
9. Did the trial court err in precluding the district from asserting its defense at trial that certain farmers were not entitled to damages because they had previously sold flowage easements to the Corps of Engineers?
10. Did the trial court err in precluding the district from defending on the basis that the farmers' alleged illegal floodplain activities barred their claim for the farmers' direct damages?
11. Was the district wrongfully denied the opportunity to present evidence and instruct the damages jury on whether the State of Arizona actually owned the farmers' lands under the equal footing doctrine? Read opinion.

October 9, 2009 - 2 CA-CV 2009-0043 - Hammoudeh, dba California Auto Market v. Jada
Whether a party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before a trial court may strike its pleadings for failure to comply with discovery requests when the party previously has been sanctioned monetarily and personal fault is apparent from the record. Read opinion.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

October 2, 2009 - No. 07-99000 - Jones v. Ryan
In a capital habeas matter, the denial of petitioner's petition is reversed where petitioner was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel at sentencing because counsel failed to: 1) secure the appointment of a mental health expert; 2) timely move for neurological and neuropsychological testing; and 3) present additional mitigation witnesses and evidence. Read opinion.

October 1, 2009 - No. 07-16870 - Sternberg v. Johnston
In an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court for violation of an automatic stay, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where plaintiff violated his duty to ensure that his actions did not prolong a violation of the stay that resulted from a state court motion seeking relief against defendant that plaintiff filed prior to the bankruptcy. However, the damages award entered by the district court is vacated where defendant could recover as actual damages only those attorney's fees related to enforcing the automatic stay and remedying the stay violation, not the fees incurred in prosecuting the bankruptcy adversary proceeding in which he pursued his claim for those damages. Read opinion.


Upcoming CLE programs
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.