Cited by

Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ().

See Alexander, 141 Ariz. at 161 (“The burden should be upon the moving party to show sufficient reason why an attorney should be disqualified from representing his client.”); Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶¶ 31-33 (App. 2004) (affirming the trial court’s holding that former representation and the present matter were not “substantially 9 STATE V. HON.

See Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 34 (App. 2004) (affirming superior court’s refusal to disqualify counsel when reasonable basis existed to support its decision).

Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 19 (App. 2004).

We address his arguments as best we can discern them, but consider waived arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority, –65, ¶ 6 (2013), and those raised for the first time on appeal, see Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2004)

See Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2004) (failure to raise an issue in the superior court constitutes waiver of issue on appeal).

We address the Ekweanis’ arguments as best we can discern them, but we consider waived both arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority, –65, ¶ 6 (2013), and those raised for the first time on appeal, see Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2004)

of evidence” however “[a] party to an action cannot stipulate to one thing and then later change her mind and withdraw her consent”); see also Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 5 “Any instrument or device, whether known as a credit card, charge card, credit plate, courtesy card or identification card or by any other name, that is issued with or without fee by an issuer for the use of the cardholder in obtaining money, goods, services or anything else of value, eith

See Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 13 (2004) (stating that failure to raise an issue in the trial court constitutes waiver of issue on appeal).

accord 12 KOMA v. WALTER Decision of the Court Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2004) (noting Ethical Rules “are not designed to be used as a means to disqualify counsel”).

We are further mindful that “[o]nly in extreme circumstances should a party to a lawsuit be allowed to interfere with the attorney-client relationship of his opponent,” and “[t]he burden is on the party moving to disqualify opposing counsel to show ‘sufficient reason’ why the attorney should be disqualified,” Amparano v. Asarco, Inc., ¶ 24 (App. 2004) (citing Alexander, 141 Ariz. at 161).

And Arizona courts look “to the ethical rules for guidance on disqualification issues.” Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2004) (citing Towne Dev.

See Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc., ¶ 14

See Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc.

4 See Amparano v. ASAR-CO, Inc., , (interpretation of statute reviewed de novo).

Amparano v. ASARCO, Inc.