e-legal

Volume 12, No. 22 | October 29, 2013

eye on ethics

Q: May I copy the opposing party on email communications that I send to opposing counsel?

A: Generally, no. Like postal mail, sending a copy of an email directly to the opposing party is the same as having direct contact with the opposing party. Unless you have been given consent by your opposing counsel to directly contact their client, you should not contemporaneously include the opposing party on email communications to opposing counsel. See, ER 4.2 and Ariz. Ethics Opinion 02-02.

 

Career Center Header

Job Bank Banner

 

 Az Atty Header

The Roberts Court
Our reviewer examines a new book about the divided Supreme Court.

Read Magazine

 

member news

Attorneys in Mohave County Come Together to Offer Free Legal Advice: During National Pro Bono Week (October 20 through October 26, 2013), attorneys from Mohave County participated in free legal clinics in Kingman, Lake Havasu City, and Bullhead City. The clinics were organized by Community Legal Services with the help of the Mohave County Bar Association and the Mohave County Combined Courts. Volunteer attorneys met with locals to advise them on civil legal issues, including divorce, custody, landlord-tenant, debtor/creditor, and bankruptcy law. A special thank you to the volunteer attorneys who met with applicants and made the event a great success: Richard C. Rahnema, Michael Wozniak, Jay Bidwell, Eric Engan, Carlene Lacy, Lisa Bruno, Kenneth Gregory, T�Shura-Ann Elias, Stephen Irgens, and Kenneth Sondgeroth.

In the news

Hobby Lobby Asks US Supreme Court to Take Up Case Over Federal Birth-Control Coverage Mandate: Lawyers for Hobby Lobby asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to take up the company�s lawsuit against the federal health care law�s requirement that coverage include access to the morning-after pill. Lawyers for the Oklahoma City-based craft store chain and its sister company, Mardel Christian bookstore, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case because of what they say are conflicting decisions by other courts regarding religious freedom. more�

Warrantless Surveillance Law May Face Test in Criminal Case: Federal prosecutors intend to use information gathered through the government's warrantless surveillance program in a criminal trial, setting up a possible court test of the constitutionality of such eavesdropping. more�

from the bar

How Long Should the State Bar Hold On to Conservatorship Files? The Succession Planning Task Force is reviewing a proposal intended to reduce the amount of time the State Bar must store files before being able to destroy them. The draft policy also would direct that all unclaimed younger files and all files older than five years would eventually be destroyed, without culling out and storing any documents. The Task Force wants input from you on the implications of this proposal. more�

Two Days Left to Apply for Grant That Encourages Qualified Attorneys to Choose Careers as Prosecutors and Public Defenders: Oftentimes, talented lawyers are unwilling to accept positions as prosecutors or public defenders, creating real challenges for those offices in their quest to hire and retain capable attorneys. In an effort to attract them, the John R. Justice (JRJ) Program provides loan repayment assistance for local, state, and federal public defenders and local and state prosecutors who commit to continued employment as public defenders and prosecutors for at least three years. Applications will be accepted until November 1, 2013. more�

Attorney Daniel T. McCarthy of Phoenix Disbarred for Stealing Client Funds: The three-member hearing panel led by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) of the Arizona Supreme Court ordered that Daniel T. McCarthy be disbarred from the practice of law, effective Oct. 8, 2013. more�

Less Than a Month to Apply for Three Commissions and Two Legal Services Organizations That Seek Your Talent and Experience: The State Bar Appointments Committee encourages you to apply by November 15th to serve on one of the State's three judicial nominating commissions. Two of Arizona's legal services organizations also seek to fill seats on their governing boards. more�

Law Practice Tip from Ahern Insurance Brokerage: How can you commit malpractice when declining a matter? Ahern, a State Bar Member Discount Provider offering professional liability insurance, will tell you how when you click here.

CSC to Conduct Landmark Survey of UCC Professionals: Corporation Service Company is calling on all UCC professionals to complete a new survey. Anyone who manages Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) searching and filing transactions under Article 9 is invited to participate by clicking here. CSC's goal with this survey is to assemble the first-ever comprehensive overview of UCC Article 9 best practices and insights.

FREE, Unlimited Online Legal Research: State Bar members can access free, unlimited online legal research through a member benefit powered by Fastcase. Click here for more information.

Did You Know 1 in 3 Professionals Will Become Disabled for Six Months or More in Their Career? Click here to learn how disability income insurance could provide you with a continuing income if sickness or injury should prevent you from working. Receive a permanent 10% discount from John Driscoll & Company, Inc, a State Bar Member Discount Provider.

State Bar Member Discounts: For a listing of all State Bar member discounts, click here.

court decisions

Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
Division Two

October 1, 2013 - 1 CA-CV 12-0242 - Sharon Niehaus et al. v. John Huppenthal et al.
1. Whether the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program violates Article 2, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution (the Religion Clause)? 2. Whether the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program violates Article 9, Section 10 of the Arizona Constitution (the Aid Clause)? 3. Whether the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program conditions receipt of a government benefit on the waiver of a constitutional right because it requires that the parent of a qualified student promise not to enroll the student in public school? Read Opinion.

September 30, 2013 - 2 CA-CR 2012-0405 - State of Arizona v. Robert C. Glissendorf
1. Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss a child molestation charge filed ten years after the victim first reported the offense to the police? 2. Was the defendant entitled to a jury instruction derived from State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184, 393 P.2d 274 (1964), due to the state's destruction of a video recording that documented the victim's initial allegation of child molestation? 3. Did the trial court commit reversible error in admitting evidence pursuant to Rule 404(c), Ariz. R. Evid., to show the defendant had an aberrant sexual propensity to commit the charged offenses? Read Opinion.

 

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

October 28, 2013 - 07-99012 - David Gulbrandson v. Charles C. Ryan
Habeas corpus petition by an Arizona state prisoner challenging his conviction and capital sentence for murder, was properly denied, where: 1) the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland to deny petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims; 2) petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective by failing to recall his expert at sentencing to testify about the potential for rehabilitation was procedurally barred; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's requests for evidentiary hearings on his various ineffective assistance claims; 4) petitioner was not entitled to relief as to his claim that the trial judge considered victim impact evidence from the victim's family members during sentencing in violation of the Eighth Amendment, because there is no Supreme Court case squarely addressing the issue of whether a judge (as opposed to a jury) is barred from considering such evidence; and 5) petitioner's request to file a second petition is denied because petitioner did not demonstrate either due diligence or actual innocence as to his claims that were not presented in his first state habeas petition. Read Opinion.

October 28, 2013 - 11-56673 - Zenia Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Company
The district court properly denied defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration in an action asserting claims under California labor law on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of other employees, where: 1) the arbitration policy was procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California contract law and therefore unenforceable; and 2) the state law supporting the unconsionability holding was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it applied to contracts generally and did not in practice impact arbitration agreements disproportionately. Read Opinion.

 

 

 

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

 

Terms of Use
Copyright �2004-2013

State Bar of Arizona

4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6266
602.252.4804
 
 

State Bar of Arizona

270 N. Church Ave., Suite. 100
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: 520.623.9944