Ethics Q&A
Q: What constitutes an impermissible "concurrent conflict of interest" under ER 1.7?

A: When the representation of one client is directly adverse to another, or when there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client. Read ER 1.7.

Need ethics advice? Call the State Bar's Ethics Hotline at 602-340-7284.



Brown v. Board at 50 Years
Read what one Arizona lawyer recalls from the early days of desegregation. Read the article.


All For You...

 

Client Information Brochures
Because communicating effectively with your clients is an important to a successful relationship, the Bar offers a variety of public information brochures designed to help your clients understand specific areas of law. Order form.

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

Whitebread Presents Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure
USC professor Charles H. Whitebread returns to analyze important U.S. Supreme Court criminal cases handed down during the past year during an all-day seminar on September 24. Seminar info.

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

Legal Links

Lawyer Jobs Available

Classifieds

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

UNSUBSCRIBE:
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.

Phoenix Law School Plans '05 Start
Though there's no physical campus or even faculty, a for-profit Phoenix law school has started to fill spots for its first class in January. Read more.

Sentencing Commission to File Brief in Post-'Blakely' Cases
The U.S. Sentencing Commission reaffirmed its view that its sentencing guidelines are constitutional. The commission will file its own brief in a pair of Supreme Court cases in which defense lawyers argue the guidelines violate the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Read more.

Prosecutors: Crime Shows Blur Reality
Prosecutors in Arizona and throughout the nation say they are facing a new adversary in the courtroom: unrealistic jury expectations spawned by glitzy TV shows about police forensics. Read more.

Report Evaluates Family Court Department
The Arizona Supreme Court has released a report it commissioned to assess the overall performance of the Family Court Department of Maricopa County Superior Court. Read the report.

Civil Jury Instructions Posted for Comment
The deadline for comment on the Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (CIVIL) Fourth Edition (RAJI 4th) final draft is October 15, 2004. Read more.

Preorder Extra Copies of the 2005 Membership Directory
Each Bar member will receive a free copy of the 2004-05 annual Membership Directories by October. Now is your chance to preorder additional copies to help stay connected with colleagues. Order form.

Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One Division Two

August 31, 2004 - CV 03-0561 - Pargman v. Vickers
May an amended complaint naming a decedent's estate relate back to the date of the original complaint, which, by mistake, named only the decedent as the defendant? Read opinion.

August 25, 2004 - 2 CA-CR 2002-0447 - State v. Newnom
Can a defendant charged with aggravated domestic violence under A.R.S. � 13-3601.02, in which prior domestic convictions are an element of the offense, prevent the jury from learning of these prior convictions by stipulating to their existence? Read opinion.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals
September 1, 2004 - No. 03-15423 - Cholla Ready Mix v. Mendez
The Establishment Clause does not bar the government from protecting an historically and culturally important site simply because the site's importance derives at least in part from its sacredness to certain groups. Read opinion.

September 1, 2004 - No. 02-16244 - Clark County School v. Lytle
A jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on her claim of retaliation is affirmed where municipal liability could be imposed on defendants since they were final policymakers of employee discipline policy and sufficient evidence was present to show that plaintiff was retaliated against. Read opinion.