Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Cardenas, 791 P.2d 1032.
- In Re Zawada 92 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2004
-
In Re Zawada
92 P.3d 862
Ariz. 2004
See, (noting that the difference between ABA Standards 4.41(b) (calling for disbarment) and 4.42(a) (calling for suspension) is the seriousness of the injury).
- In Re a Suspended Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Brady 923 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1996
- In Re a Suspended Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Brady 923 P.2d 836 Ariz. 1996
- Matter of Levine 847 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1993
- Matter of Levine 847 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1993
- Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
- Matter of Wolfram 847 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1993
- In re Cassalia 843 P.2d 654 Ariz. 1992
-
In re Cassalia
843 P.2d 654
Ariz. 1992
2 The six month suspension recommended by the Hearing Committee is also proportional when considering , , and
- In Re Coffey 832 P.2d 197 Ariz. 1992
-
In Re Coffey
832 P.2d 197
Ariz. 1992
For guidance, we may look to the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986) (Standards), which we consider a “useful tool in determining the proper sanction.”
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Mulhall 822 P.2d 947 Ariz. 1992
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Mulhall 822 P.2d 947 Ariz. 1992
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Jones 816 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Gaynes 816 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Gaynes 816 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1991
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Jones 816 P.2d 916 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Nicolini 814 P.2d 1385 Ariz. 1991
-
Matter of Nicolini
814 P.2d 1385
Ariz. 1991
Effective date of suspension We have reviewed the record as the ultimate trier of fact, considered the Bar’s recommendation, and found that there is clear and convincing evidence, , that respondent violated the ethical rules noted above.
- In re Feeley 814 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1991
-
In re Feeley
814 P.2d 777
Ariz. 1991
Reviewing the record as the trier of fact and seriously considering the Bar’s recommendation, we believe that there is clear and convincing evidence, , that respondent violated the ethical rules enumerated above.
- Matter of Wade 814 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Wade 814 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Hiser 813 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Smith 813 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Hiser 813 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Smith 813 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Henry 811 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1991
- Matter of Henry 811 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1991
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Myers 795 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1990
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Myers 795 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1990