Volume 10, No. 13 | June 21, 2011

eye on ethics

Q. An associate I fired wants information about clients and matters she worked on for me. She claims to need it to check for conflicts with a firm that has offered her a job. Do I have to comply?

A. Yes, otherwise it will induce misconduct by denying her information she needs to comply with the Ethical Rules.
Read OP 10-02.


Visit azbar.org for more news about the State Bar.



legal links



AZ Supreme Court Opinions 


CLE Seminars 

Expert and Consultant Directory 

Lawyer Jobs Available 

Legal Dictionary 

Legal Resources 

Member Benefits 



Tucson Mentors Praised
A district court judge recalls just starting out, and what a difference two Tucson lawyers made to her career.


Read More




member news


Brewer Announces Attorney John Greene as New Revenue Director: Governor Jan Brewer named John Greene the new Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR). Mr. Greene has been appointed to replace outgoing Director Gale Garriott, who is leaving to pursue a position outside state government. Garriot’s departure is effective June 29, 2011. more»



In the news


Supreme Court Erects Major Barriers to Class Actions in Wal-Mart Ruling: The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping victory to Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in the company's decade-long effort to thwart a discrimination class action filed on behalf of more than 1 million female current and former workers. The ruling is likely to hobble other large employment class actions as well. more»


Judge Approves $3.4B Settlement in Native American Class Action: A federal judge in Washington on Monday evening approved a landmark $3.4 billion settlement in a Native American class action that stands to compensate hundreds of thousands of American Indians. more»


from the bar


You Need to Know: CLE Deadline Is June 30: Quick reminder that the CLE educational year runs from July 1 to June 30. June 30 is the deadline to complete your continuing legal education for the current cycle. more»

Openings Still Available for Trial College: The Arizona College of Trial Advocacy has extended its registration deadline to July 1.  This prestigious program is limited to a select group of 48 attorneys. For more information and an application, click here .

Arizona Legal News Headlines: Arizona Legal News Headlines updated throughout the business day at azbar.org/NewsCenter . Click on it and bookmark now!

Sign Your Children Up for the Bar’s 2011 Summer Law Camp: The State Bar’s Summer Law Camp is the perfect way to get your children interested in the legal profession. The free, two-day Summer Law Camp will be held on Friday, June 24 and Saturday, June 25. Sign them up today! more»


court decisions


Arizona Court of Appeals

Division One
| Division Two

June 16, 2011 - JV 10-0233 - Yvonne L. v. ADES
Does the clear and convincing standard of proof apply to the question of whether ADES has made "active efforts" to prevent the breakup of an Indian family pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act? Read Opinion .

June 20, 2011 - 2 CA-CR 2010-0235 - State of Arizona v. Ricky Gray
Whether a conviction for tampering with a witness under A.R.S. § 13-2804 requires proof that a person had actually unlawfully withheld testimony, testified falsely, or failed to obey a summons as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Read Opinion .

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

June 18, 2011 - 09-15703 – Lacey v. Maricopa County
In a Section 1983 action arising from the controversial late-night arrests of two Phoenix newspaper executives for their publication of an article that criticized a series of commercial land transactions involving defendant-sheriff, judgment of the district court dismissing action on grounds of qualified and absolute immunity is affirmed in part and reversed in part where the actions of the special prosecutor in arranging Plaintiffs' arrests raise colorable claims of First and Fourth Amendment violations. Read Opinion .

June 10, 2011 - 09-17349 - Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance
In a regulatory and adjudicative dispute involving an Indian tribe's civil authority over non-Indians acting on tribal land, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part because a tribe may exercise jurisdiction over a private, non-Indian corporation and its non-Indian owner where there are no sufficient competing state interests at play, and given Supreme Court precedent recognizing tribes' inherent civil authority over non-Indian conduct on tribal land coupled with expressed congressional interest in promoting tribal self-government. Read Opinion .


Copyright ©2004-2011

State Bar of Arizona

4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288

State Bar of Arizona

270 N Church Ave., Ste. 100
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: 520-623-9944