Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Shannon, 876 P.2d 548.

47 citing documents.

In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel Ariz. 2025
In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel Ariz. 2025
See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 3
Moorish v. Social Security Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Moorish v. Social Security Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
DISCUSSION ¶3 “[T]he determination of who shall practice law in Arizona and under what condition is a function placed by the [Arizona] constitution in [the] court.” (quoting Hunt v. Maricopa Cty.
Camboni v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Camboni v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(citing Hunt v. Maricopa Cty.
In Re Lazcano 222 P.3d 896 Ariz. 2010
In Re Lazcano 222 P.3d 896 Ariz. 2010
876 P.2d - 8 - 548, 573 (1994).
Arpaio v. Davis 210 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arpaio v. Davis 210 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
at 71, ¶20 , 193 P.3d at 325 ( , ).
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In this sense, administrative functions or acts are distinguished from such as are judicial.” , (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 42 (5th ed.1979)) (emphasis in original).
In Re McVay 158 P.3d 198 Ariz. 2007
In Re McVay 158 P.3d 198 Ariz. 2007
6 In conjunction with lawyer discipline, we have similarly held that “[w]e do not consider the nature of the lawyer’s practice, the effect on the lawyer’s livelihood, or the level of pain inflicted when determining the appropriate sanction.” ¶ 10, ( 7 recommending censure and fine, the Commission improperly considered the financial consequences a suspension would have on Judge McVay’s retirement benefits.
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
see also In re Spear, 160 Ariz. 545, 555-56, -46 (1989) (finding a dishonest or selfish motive because respondent “intentional[ly] abuse[d] .
In Re Non-Member of State Bar, Van Dox 152 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2007
-56 , -46 (1989) (finding a dishonest or selfish motive because respondent “intentional[ly] abuse[d] ...
In Re King 136 P.3d 878 Ariz. 2006
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
(opting for statutory interpretation that does not limit this court in interpreting range of sanctions it could impose on attorneys so as not to implicate constitutional concerns); Hayes, 178 Ariz. at 273, 872 P.2d at 677.
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
In Re Peasley 90 P.3d 764 Ariz. 2004
See, (stating that “[w]e look to the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions .
In Re Clark 87 P.3d 827 Ariz. 2004
In Re Clark 87 P.3d 827 Ariz. 2004
See, (stating that “[w]e look to the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions .
In Re Nelson 86 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2004
In Re Nelson 86 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2004
(concluding that the attorney discipline process is procedural).
In Re Moak 71 P.3d 343 Ariz. 2003
In Re Moak 71 P.3d 343 Ariz. 2003
Ct. 42, ERs 3.3, 4.2, and 8.4(c), (d); (holding an attorney violated his duty of candor to the tribunal by changing his client’s interrogatory answers without the client’s knowledge); (Wash.
In Re Alcorn 41 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2002
In Re Alcorn 41 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2002
(attorney’s failure to execute satisfaction of judgment before cashing check, resulting in motion to compel and five-month delay, was undue waste of court resources and prejudicial to administration of justice).
In the Matter of Richard Alcorn and Steven Feola Ariz. 2002
In the Matter of Richard Alcorn and Steven Feola Ariz. 2002
(attorney’s failure to execute satisfaction of judgment before cashing check, resulting in motion to compel and five-month delay, was undue waste of court resources and prejudicial to administration of justice).
In Re Scholl 25 P.3d 710 Ariz. 2001
In Re Scholl 25 P.3d 710 Ariz. 2001
In re Jonah T. 994 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In re Jonah T. 994 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re a Member of the State Bar 951 P.2d 889 Ariz. 1998
Matter of Murphy 936 P.2d 1269 Ariz. 1997
Matter of Murphy 936 P.2d 1269 Ariz. 1997
(attorney must explain implications, advantages, and risks of common representation); , (full disclosure includes explanation of divergent interests and of need to seek independent legal advice).
In Re Varbel 897 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1995
In Re Varbel 897 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1995
-82 , -78 (1994) (Zlaket, J., dissenting).
Matter of Owens 893 P.2d 1284 Ariz. 1995
Brown v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 890 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Brown v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 890 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Arrick 882 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Arrick 882 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1994