Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Swartz, 686 P.2d 1236.

52 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of Wichansky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
In Re the Marriage of Wichansky Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Under § 25-324, a court is permitted to award fees 2-30 & n.2 (App. 1994) ( and Ariz. R. Sup.
Beus Gilbert v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Beus Gilbert v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
And although a fee agreement between a lawyer and a client “is not an ordinary business contract,” the Williamses have shown no basis for the court to invalidate the Agreement they signed with Beus Gilbert.
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Geller v. Lesk 285 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
42, ER (“E.R.”) 1.5(a) and , ); , (when underlying con *629 tract provided for reasonable fees to lender and lender entered into contingency fee agreement with counsel, plaintiff must come forward with evidence of reasonableness of the ultimate fee).
In re Member of State Bar 244 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2010
In Re Phillips 244 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2010
In Re Phillips 244 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2010
The firm shall utilize a fee review process, consistent with P.2d 1236 (1984), and ER 1.5, at the conclusion of all cases in order to determine whether a refund is due.
In the Matter of Carly Van Dox Ariz. 2007
In Re Non-Member of State Bar, Van Dox 152 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2007
In the Matter of Carly Van Dox Ariz. 2007
In re Scholl, 200 Ariz. 222, 227, ¶ 29, ( and ).
In Re Non-Member of State Bar, Van Dox 152 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2007
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
¶64 As mentioned previously, “[t]he purposes of professional discipline are to protect the public, the legal profession, and the justice system, and to deter others from engaging in misconduct.” Horwitz, 180 Ariz. at 28-29, 881 P.2d at 360-61 ( and ).
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County 88 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
196, 200-01 , -41 (App.1969) (enforcing time limitation based on stipulation against plaintiff where plaintiffs attorneys had expressly agreed to it and “were not innocent, deceived laymen”); , *461 (“[B]usiness contracts may be enforced between those in equal bargaining capacities, even though they turn out to be unfair, inequitable or harsh.”).
In Re Connelly 55 P.3d 756 Ariz. 2002
In Re Connelly 55 P.3d 756 Ariz. 2002
In Re Scholl 25 P.3d 710 Ariz. 2001
In Re Scholl 25 P.3d 710 Ariz. 2001
Matter of Hirschfeld 960 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1998
Matter of Hirschfeld 960 P.2d 640 Ariz. 1998
In Re a Member of the State Bar 951 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1998
In Re Fee 898 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1995
In Re Fee 898 P.2d 975 Ariz. 1995
Rule 3, Uniform Medical Malpractice Rules, makes it the court's duty to evaluate the reasonableness of both sides’ fees according to the factors set forth in ER 1.5 and
Matter of Horwitz 881 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Horwitz 881 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Struthers 877 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Struthers 877 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Conservatorship of Fallers 889 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Conservatorship of Fallers 889 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
DISCUSSION A. THE STANDARD While courts in the United States recognize attorneys’ rights to enter into contingen *229 cy fee agreements, , potential abuse of these agreements makes regulation and review a necessity.
Marron v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marron v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
1133 , 47 L.Ed.2d 332 (1976)
Ohliger v. Carondelet St. Mary's Hospital & Health Center 845 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Ohliger v. Carondelet St. Mary's Hospital & Health Center 845 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
As the comment to Medical Malpractice Rule 3 makes clear, the trial court is expected to review all fees for reasonableness under ER 1.5, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 42, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.R.S., and
In re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Engan 825 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1992
In re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Engan 825 P.2d 468 Ariz. 1992
In determining the appropriate sanction, we must remember that “the purpose of bar discipline is not to punish the lawyer but to deter others and protect the public.” , ( , ).
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona Zang 762 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1988
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona Zang 762 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1988
1184 , 84 L.Ed.2d 331 (1985) (misrepresentations to client); , (failure to communicate and neglect of client’s affairs); , (excessive fee arrangements).
Peterson v. Anderson 745 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Peterson v. Anderson 745 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Boy v. Fremont Indemnity Co. 742 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Boy v. Fremont Indemnity Co. 742 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Boy also argues that , stands for the proposition that an attorney should attempt to persuade the insurer to reduce its lien.
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
Young v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 707 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Young v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 707 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985