Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Wines, 660 P.2d 454.

37 citing documents.

Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“We charge lawyers with knowledge of what the law requires and place them under an affirmative duty to accomplish what is required of them.”); (“Certainly an attorney owes a duty of utmost good faith to his client and must info
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
Alcorn, 202 Ariz. at 76, ¶ 49, 41 P.3d at 614; (finding that while proportionality is appropriate, discipline is tailored to each individual case).
Raye v. Jones 76 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Raye v. Jones 76 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
449 , solicitation of prostitution, , perjury, , forgery, see id., fraud, , false reporting, , ,(App.1991), and misappropriation of funds.
In Re Scholl 25 P.3d 710 Ariz. 2001
In Re Scholl 25 P.3d 710 Ariz. 2001
¶ 13 The Commission cited , which discusses the appropriate disciplinary weight *225 due in a case in which the lawyer’s client is not harmed.
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
449 , solicitation of prostitution, , perjury, , forgery, see id., fraud, , and misappropriation of funds
In Re a Member of the State Bar 951 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1998
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
We have long recognized, however, that “[t]he discipline in each situation must be tailored for the individual case; neither perfection nor absolute uniformity can be achieved.” , see, e.g., Levine, 174 Ariz. at 174 , 847 P.2d at 1121 .
Matter of Levine 847 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1993
Matter of Levine 847 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1993
In re Murray, 159 Ariz. at 283, 767 P.2d at 4
In Re Ockrassa 799 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1990
In Re Ockrassa 799 P.2d 1350 Ariz. 1990
Rule 54(k)(4), Rules of the Supreme Court
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Smith 794 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Smith 794 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Morris 793 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Morris 793 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Nefstead 789 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1990
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Nefstead 789 P.2d 385 Ariz. 1990
As we have previously stated, “the discipline in each situation must be tailored for the individual case; neither perfection nor absolute uniformity can be achieved.”
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Fresquez 783 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1989
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Fresquez 783 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1989
As we noted a year later, “if Mr. Klein-dienst got less than he deserved, we do not propose to make the same mistake twice.” , 207 n. 5, , 458 n. 5 (1983).
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Pappas 768 P.2d 1161 Ariz. 1988
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Pappas 768 P.2d 1161 Ariz. 1988
245, 247 , Standards, supra, § 1.3 (one of purposes of these standards is to promote “consistency in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions for same or similar offenses” within the same jurisdiction); , 207 & n. 6, , 458 & n. 6 (1983) (“neither perfection nor absolute uniformity” is achievable among sanctions imposed in bar disciplinary matters, but the State Bar must carefully examine the proportionality of each sanction recommendation).
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Murray 767 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1988
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Murray 767 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1988
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Kersting 726 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1986
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Kersting 726 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1986
the offense entails the employment of dishonesty, fraud, or deceit which is perpetrat *178 ed to enrich the offending attorney or to enhance his own well-being at the expense of his client, the state, or any other individual.” , (quoting Maryland State Bar Association, Inc. v. Agnew, 271 Md.
In re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona Salazar 694 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1985
In re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona Salazar 694 P.2d 253 Ariz. 1985
Being well aware that this court is the ultimate trier of fact in disciplinary proceedings, , we have read the transcripts of the hearings and studied the briefs.
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona Blankenburg 694 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1984
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona Blankenburg 694 P.2d 195 Ariz. 1984
As we have previously stated, “the purpose of discipline is to protect the public, the profession and the administration of justice, * * *, and to deter other lawyers from improper conduct.” , .(citation omitted).
In Re a Member of State Bar of Arizona Riley 691 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1984
In Re a Member of State Bar of Arizona Riley 691 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1984
We have noted that, “The discipline in each situation must be tailored for the individual case; neither perfection nor absolute uniformity can be achieved.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by