Can my client hire me only to represent him at a deposition?
Yes, but be careful of whether representing him at a deposition constitutes an appearance in the case. Read Ethics Op. 06-03
A Novel Journey
Many people may have a novel in them, but only some write and publish it. We hear from one lawyer who has. Read more.
Lawyer Seeks Machine's Code in DUI Case
One of the most significant ongoing debates in drunken driving prosecution and defense may play a big role in the outcome of a Yuma city council member's DUI case. Read more.
New Supreme Court Term Promises Early Drama
The U.S. Supreme Court's new term—which will open on the traditional first Monday in October—already offers controversial challenges which will likely test the chief justice's consensus-building efforts. Read more.
Appeals Court Ruling May Change Death Penalty Resentencings
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that in resentencing cases, defendants can challenge the aggravating factors that made them eligible for the death penalty. Read more.
Civil Judges Taking Criminal Trials
Maricopa County Superior Court judges on civil calendar assignments are shifting their calendars to include criminal trials to help reduce delay in resolving criminal cases that could be dismissed if not resolved within mandatory time limits. Read more.
2006-07 State Bar Membership Directory – Order Now!
It's time to order the new State Bar Membership Directory for your office staff. Order now to be sure you're not caught short. Order now.
California Bar Seeks Permanent Disbarment
California attorneys who commit egregious misconduct can be permanently disbarred if the California Supreme Court approves a recommendation adopted last month by California's State Bar Board of Governors. Read more.
Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One | Division Two
September 7, 2006 – CV 04-0343 – Kay S. v. Mark S.
Is an attorney who serves irregularly but not infrequently as a part-time pro tem judge in a division of family court authorized to appear before that division representing a client because his service is "sporadic" pursuant to Ariz. R. Sup. Ct 81, Application D(3)? Read opinion.
September 14, 2006 – 2CA-SA 2006-0056 – Nordstrom v. State
Is a defendant ordered by the supreme court to be resentenced pursuant to A.R.S. �� 13-703 and 13-703.01 entitled to a full sentencing hearing in accordance with those statutes or only to have the jury weigh the evidence in mitigation against aggravating circumstances it must assume exist? Read opinion.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
September 15, 2006 – No. 04-35606, 04-35758 – Ballen v. City of Redmond
In a commercial free speech First Amendment case, summary judgment for plaintiff and an award of attorneys' fees is affirmed where a city's sign ordinance, which prohibits the use of portable signs, impermissibly discriminates against the commercial speech rights of businesses within the city. Read opinion.
September 11, 2006 – No. 04-16539 – Hebbring v. U.S. Trustee
The Bankruptcy Code does not, per se, disallow voluntary contributions to a retirement plan as a reasonably necessary expense in calculating a debtor's disposable income, but rather requires courts to examine the totality of the debtor's circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Read opinion.
Speaking to Win
Learn oral advocacy, appellate advocacy and presentation tips at this three-hour seminar on Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006. 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
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