State Bar of Arizona Board of Governors and Good Legal

STATE BAR OF ARIZONA BOARD OF GOVERNORS
The State Bar of Arizona Board of Governors oversees the policy making and operation
of the organization. The Board is comprised of 30 people: four non-attorney, public
members appointed by the Board; three at-large members appointed by the Arizona
Supreme Court; 19 attorney members elected by fellow Bar members in their district; and
three ex-officio members (immediate past president and the deans of Arizona's three law
schools).
President
Raymond A. Hanna
Raymond A. Hanna PC
PO Box 2299
Prescott, AZ 86302-2299
Phone: 928-771-9050
Fax: 928-443-0384
ray.hanna@azbar.org
President-Elect
Alan P. Bayham, Jr.
Bayham Jerman PLC

1440 E. Missouri, Suite C-211
Phoenix, AZ 85014-2458
Phone: 602-200-9050
Fax: 602-445-3472
alan.bayham@azbar.org
First Vice President

Joseph A. Kanefield
Office of the Governor

1700 W. Washington St., 9th Fl.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602-542-1586
Fax: 602-542-7602
joseph.kanefield@azbar.org
Second Vice President

Amelia Craig Cramer
Chief Deputy Pima County Attorney
Offices of Pima County Attorney
Legal Services Bldg, 19th Floor
32 N. Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701-1403
Phone: 520-740-5598
amelia.cramer@pcao.pima.gov Fax: 520-740-5495
Secretary-Treasurer
Whitney Cunningham
Cunningham Mott PC
2951 W. Shamrell Boulevard, Suite 107
Flagstaff, AZ 86002-0280
Phone: 928-556-8640
Fax: 928-556-8641
whitney@cunninghammott.com
YLD President
Samuel Saks
Cantelme & Brown PLC

3030 N. Central Ave, Suite 1107
Phoenix, AZ 85017
Phone: 602-200-0104
Fax: 602-200-0106
ssaks@cb-attorneys.com
District 3 (Gila, Graham, and Greenlee Counties)

Bryan B. Chambers
Chief Deputy County Attorney
Gila County Attorney’s Office
1400 E. Ash Street
Globe, AZ 85501-1414
Phone: 928-425-3231
Fax: 928-425-3720
Bryan.Chambers@azbar.org
District 4 (Cochise County)
Roger H. Contreras
Deputy County Attorney
Office of the Cochise County Attorney
Drug Unit
Post Office Drawer CA
Bisbee, Arizona 85603
Phone: 520-432-8700
Fax: 520-432-2487
Roger.Contreras@azbar.org
District 5 (Pima, Santa Cruz Counties)

Michael J. Crawford
Mesch Clark & Rothschild PC
259 N. Meyer
Tucson, AZ 85701-1090
Phone: 520-624-8886
Fax: 520-798-1037
mcrawford@mcrazlaw.com
Dee-Dee Samet
Dee-Dee Samet PC
717 N. 6th Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85705-8304
Phone: 520-624-8595
Fax: 520-623-4560
Dee-Dee.Samet@azbar.org
District 6 (Maricopa County)

Theodore Campagnolo
Office of Attorney General
1275 W. Washington
Phone: 602-542-8425
Fax: 602-542-5997
Ted.Campagnolo@azag.gov
Richard Coffinger
Law Office of Richard D. Coffinger
6838 N. 58th Drive
Glendale, AZ 85301-3223
Phone: 623-937-9214
Fax: 623-937-7072
Richard.Coffinger@azbar.org
Tom Crowe
Crowe & Scott, PA
1100 E. Washington Street, Suite 200
Phone: 602-252-2570
Fax: 602-252-1939
tom@crowescott.com
Stephen M. Dichter
Harper, Christian, Dichter & Graif, P.C.
2700 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0001
Phone: 602-792-1700
Fax: 602-792-1710
sdichter@hcdglaw.com
Diane L. Drain
Law Office of D. L. Drain PA
1702 W. Camelback, Suite 264
Phone: 602-246-7106
Fax: 602-249-1969
DDrain@DianeDrain.com
H. Leslie Hall
Theodore C. Jarvi, Attorney at Law
1050 E. Southern Ave., Suite G-3
Tempe, AZ 85282-0001
Phone: 480-838-6566
Fax: 480-838-8810
hlesliehall@gmail.com
Lisa Loo
Deputy General Counsel
Arizona State University
P.O. Box 87-7405
Tempe, AZ 85287-7405
Phone: 480-965-4550
Fax: 480-965-0984
lisaloo@asu.edu
District 7 (La Paz and Yuma Counties)

Jimmie Dee Smith
Attorney at Law
221 S. Second Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85364-2265
Phone: 928-783-7809
Fax: 928-783-7800
jimmiedeesmith@azbar.org
District 8 (Pinal County)

Richard T. Platt
Office of the Pinal County Attorney
100 N. Florence
P.O. Box 887
Florence, AZ 85232-0887
Phone: 520-866-6271
Fax: 520-866-6519
richard.platt@azbar.org
Ex-Officio Members
Immediate Past President
Edward F. Novak
Polsinelli Shughart
Security Title Plaza
3636 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: 602-650-2020
Fax: 602-264-7033
ed.novak@azbar.org
Lawrence Ponoroff
Dean, James E. Rogers College of Law
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721-0001
Phone: 520-621-1498
Fax: 520-626-2050
Lawrence.Ponoroff@law.arizona.ed
u
Gene Clark
Dean, Phoenix School of Law
4041 N. Central Avenue, Suite 100
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Phone: 602 682-6814
Fax: 602 682-6998
gclark@phoenixlaw.edu
Paul Schiff Berman

Dean, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
Phone: 480-965-6188
Fax: 480-965-6521
Paul.Berman@asu.edu
Public Members
Frank Barriga
5233 W. Hatcher Road
Glendale, AZ 85302
Phone: 602-809-2695
John J. Sullivan
15067 S. Camino Rio Puerco
Sahuarita, AZ 85629
Phone: 520-207-1665
maritajohn@cox.net
Emily R. Johnston
89550 E. Aravaipa Road
Winkelman, AZ 85292
Phone: 520-357-6117
Fax: 520-744-4355
Silveradoe@aol.com
Alexander B. Jamison
Mediation & Ombudsman Resolutions, ETC
9393 N. 90th Street, #102-130
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone: 480-905-7073
Fax: 480-905-1695
moreombuds@aol.com
At Large Members
Jennifer J. Burns
P.O. Box 27045
Tucson, AZ 85726
Phone Number: 520-437-0170
jjburnsaz@yahoo.com
David K. Byers
Administrative Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
Phone: 602-452-3307
Fax: 602-452-3484
dbyers@courts.az.gov
Virginia Herrera-Gonzales
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Child and Family Protection Division
Protective Services Section
430 N. Dobson, #101
Mesa, AZ 85201
Phone: 480-834-3775, Ext. 212
virginia.gonzales@azag.gov Fax: 480-834-8194
Aguilar, Denise K. Title: Attorney Company: Aguilar Law Firm, P.C. Address: 4425 E.
Agave Rd. Ste. 104 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85044 Spanish Speaking: No Phone:
(480)455-1881 Fax: (480)621-3018 E-mail: denise@aguilarlawonline.com Area of
Practice
 Bankruptcy
 Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Plaintiff)
Aguilera, Gabriel T. Company: Quarles & Brady Streich Lang,LLP City: Phoenix
State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)229-5730 Fax: (602)420-5016
E-mail: gaguilera@quarles.com Area of Practice
 Corporate
 Securities
Araneta, Honorable Louis A. Title: Judge Company: Maricopa County Superior Court
Address: 201 W. Jefferson Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking:
No Araneta, Louis A. Company: Maricopa County Superior Court Address: 1810 S.
Lewis City: Mesa State: AZ Zip: 85210 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail:
laraneta@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov Arellano, Silvia Title: Judge Company:
Maricopa County Superior Court Address: 222 East Javelina, Suite 203 C City: Mesa,
State: AZ Zip: 85210 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)506-3679 Fax: (602)372-8668
E-mail: launica@cox.net Armendarez, Theresa M. Title: Sole Practitioner Company:
Theresa M. Armendarez, P.L.C. Address: 3219 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 828 City:
Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85018 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)274-7238 Fax:
(602)274-7372 E-mail: theresa.armendarez@azbar.org Area of Practice
 Appellate (Civil)
 Appellate (Criminal)
 Juvenile
Baca, Yolanda Company: Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. Address: 2575 E. Camelback
Rd. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85016 Phone: (602)530-8183 Fax: (602)530-8500 E-
mail: yb@gknet.com Barraza, Jason Matthew City: Phoenix State: AZ Spanish
Speaking: No Area of Practice
 Non-Profit Organization
Breeze, Michael Anthony Company: Yuma County Public Defender Address: 168 S.
Second Avenue City: Yuma State: AZ Zip: 85364 Spanish Speaking: No Phone:
(928)817-4600 Fax: (928)817-4619 E-mail: breezelaw@azbar.org Bustamante,
Antonio Company: Law Office of Antonio D. Bustamante, P.C. City: Phoenix State:
AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)495-1414 Fax: (602)253-7724 E-
mail: antonio_b@qwest.net Area of Practice
 Criminal (Defense)
Bustamante, Ernest S. Company: Ricker & Bustamante, LLP Address: 4530 E.Shea
Blvd., #150 City: Phoenix State: AZ Phone: (602)277-9900 Fax: (602)277-9970 E-mail:
e.bustamante@rblawoffice.com Area of Practice
 Construction
 Insurance
 Medical Malpractice
 Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Defense)
Calderon, Ernest Company: Calderon Law Offices Address: 3101 N. Central Ave.,
#700 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)265-0004
Fax: (602)230-1377 E-mail: calderon@azlex.com Area of Practice
 Commercial Litigation
 Contracts
 Employment and Labor Law
 General Civil
Calleros, Charles R. Title: Prof. Company: Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law,
ASU Address: 1100 S. McCallister Ave. City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85226 Spanish
Speaking: No Fax: (480)965-2427 E-mail: charles.calleros@asu.edu Area of Practice
 Civil Rights
 Contracts
 International
Carpio, Xavier Alexander Company: Snow & Carpio, PLC Address: PO Box 33994
City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85013 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)532-0700 Fax:
(602)532-0701 E-mail: alex@snowcarpio.com Area of Practice
 Workers' Compensation
 General Litigation
 Insurance
Carrion, Carlos D Company: Maricopa County Public Defender's Office Address: 620
W. Jackson St., Suite 4015 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No E-
mail: carrionc@maricopa.gov Chacon, Neyma Title: Sole Practitioner City: Phoenix
State: AZ Zip: 85041 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)262-4323 E-mail:
nachacon1@hotmail.com Area of Practice
Chavez, Honorable Harriett Title: Judge Company: Superior Court Address: 201 W.
Jefferson City: Phoenix State: AZ Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)506-4208 E-mail:
hchavez@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov Area of Practice
 Family Law
Cisneros, Milagros A. Company: Office of Federal Public Defender City: Phoenix

State: AZ Zip: 85007 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)382-2727 Fax: (602)382-2800
E-mail: milagros_cisneros@fd.org Area of Practice
 Government
Cota, Francisca Company: Phoenix Municipal Court Address: 300 W. Washington

Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85310 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail:
francisca.cota@phoenix.gov Area of Practice
 Judicial
Cotto, Sylvina Company: Scottsdale Financial Center III City: Scottsdale State: AZ
Zip: 85251 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)429-3700 Fax: (480)481-9021 E-mail:
sdcotto@qwest.net Area of Practice
 Domestic Relations
Cruz, Richard A. Title: Of Counsel Company: Richard A. Cruz, P.C. Address: 10429
S. 51st Street, Suite 210 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85044 Spanish Speaking: No
Phone: (480)477-8660 Fax: (480)477-8657 E-mail: Rich_Cruz5@hotmail.com Area of
Practice
Cruz, Samantha Jo Address: 7808 N. 32nd Drive City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85051
Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)201-8123 E-mail: sjcruz@phoenixlaw.edu Area of
Practice
 Corporate
 Entertainment
 Family Law
Denny, Mike Address: 920 E. Devonshire Ave Unit 3019 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
85014 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: mdenny@asu.edu DeSoto, Rita E. Company:
DeSoto Law Firm Address: 2942 N. 24th St, Suite 114 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
85016 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)424-7445 E-mail: desotolaw@yahoo.com
Area of Practice
 Family Law
Diaz, Marisol Juarez Address: 139 N 11th Ave., Unit A City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
85007 Spanish Speaking: No Dominguez, Antonio Company: Dominguez &
Associates,P.C Address: 2323 N. 3rd St, Suite 100 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004
Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)252-1885 Fax: (602)252-1905 E-mail:
antonio@dominguezlaw.net Area of Practice
 Condemnation
 Elder Law
 Estate Planning
 Probate/Trusts/Wills
 Real Estate
Escobedo, Esteban Title: Attorney Company: Law Offices of Esteban Escobedo

Address: 512 E. Southern Ave, Ste. E City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85282 Spanish
Speaking: Yes Phone: (480)968-6878 Fax: (480)968-6917 E-mail: eelaw@azbar.org
Area of Practice
 Bankruptcy
 Tax
Esquer, Cecilia D. City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85282 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone:
(480)968-4934 E-mail: cecilia.esquer@azbar.org Estrella, Cynthia R. Title: Attorney
at Law Company: Polsinelli Shughart Address: 3636 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200 City:
(602)926-8108 E-mail: cestrella@polsinelli.com Area of Practice
 Construction
 Litigation
 Suretyship
Flores, Albert M Company: Law Offices of Albert M. Flores Address: 337 N. 4th
Avenue City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)271-
0070 Fax: (602)252-1922 E-mail: amflegal@aol.com Area of Practice
Flores, Christopher A. Company: Law Office of Christopher A. Flores City: Phoenix

E-mail: christopher@azbar.org Area of Practice
 DUI
 Juvenile
Flores, Christopher A. Company: Law Office of Christopher A. Flores City: Phoenix

E-mail: cflores13@cox.net Area of Practice
Fontes, Adrian P. Company: Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes Address: 111 W.

Monroe Street, Suite 425 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes
Phone: (602)257-9083 Fax: (602)424-2128 E-mail: adrian@fonteslaw.com Fontes,
Magaly Title: Attorney Company: The Law Office of Magaly Fontes Address: 2256 N.
15th Avenue City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85007 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone:
(602)503-8320 E-mail: magaly@fonteslawfirm.com Area of Practice
 Immigration
Galarza, Rod Company: Kasdan, Simonds, Riley & Vaughn LLP City: Phoenix State:
AZ Zip: 85016 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)224-7800 Fax: (602)224-7801 E-mail:
rgalarza@kasdansimonds.com Area of Practice
 Construction
 Litigation
Gámez, Michele Company: City of Phoenix Prosecutor's Office Address: 300 West
Washington City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85030 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail:
michele.gamez@azbar.org Garcia, Gregorio M. City: Phoenix State: AZ Spanish
Speaking: No Area of Practice
 Construction
Garcia, Lina Company: Maricopa County Public Defender Address: 620 W Jackson
Ste 4015 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes E-mail:
garcial007@mail.maricopa.gov Area of Practice
Garza, Daniel Company: Law Office G. Daniel Garza Address: 3303 E. Baseline 113
City: Gilbert State: AZ Zip: 85234 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail: Gdgarza@hotmail.com
Area of Practice
 Social Security
Gitnacht, Bruno Address: 995 E. Baseline Rd., APT # 2161 City: Tempe State: AZ
Zip: 85283 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (702)378-3467 E-mail: Bruncis@aol.com
Gomez, David F. Title: President Company: Gomez & Petitti, P.C. City: Phoenix State:
AZ Zip: 85016 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)957-8686 Fax: (602)956-9854 E-mail:
dfg@gomezlaw.net Area of Practice
 Administrative/Regulatory
 Civil Rights
 Education
 Litigation
Gomez- Green, Edna Title: Paralegal Company: Fresh Start Womens Foundation
Address: 1130 E. McDowell Rd. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85006 Spanish Speaking:
No E-mail: egomez@fswf.org Area of Practice
 Family Law
Gonzalez - Melendez, Erica R. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85034 Spanish Speaking:
No Phone: (602)576-4961 E-mail: ergmelendez@msn.com Area of Practice
 Criminal (Prosecution)
Guerrero, Marni F. Company: Peter A. Guerrero, P.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)253-3554 Fax: (602)340-1896 E-mail:
marni@rmgmoinjurylaw.com Area of Practice
 Civil Rights
 General Civil
Guerrero, Peter A. Company: Peter A. Guerrero, P.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
pete@rmglaw.com Area of Practice
Gutierrez, Francisco X. Company: Law Offices of Francisco X. Gutierrez, P.C. City:
Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)495-0000 Fax:
(602)253-7724 E-mail: fxglaw@qwest.net Area of Practice
Gutierrez, Carlos Beltran Title: Attorney Company: Warner Angle Hallam Jackson &
Formanek PLC Address: 3550 N. Central Ave. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85033
cgutierrez@warnerangle.com Area of Practice
Hernandez, James P. Address: PO Box 6568 City: Peoria State: Az Zip: 85385
Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (623)680-5392 Fax: (623)328-8831 E-mail:
jphernandez@cox.net Area of Practice
 DUI
Herrera - Gonzales, Virginia Title: Assistant Attorney General Company: Office of

the Attorney General City: Mesa State: AZ Zip: 85201 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone:
(480)834-3775 Fax: (480)834-8194 E-mail: virginia.gonzales@azag.gov Area of
Practice
 Civil Rights
 Government
Herrera- Gonzalez, Virginia Company: Office of the Attorney General City: Mesa
State: az Zip: 85201 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)834-3775 Fax: (480)834-8194 E-
mail: Virginia.gonzalez@azag.gov Area of Practice
 Government
Hirsch, Kyle Company: Bryan Cave LLP City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish
Speaking: No Phone: (602)364-7170 E-mail: kyle.hirsch@bryancave.com Area of
Practice
 Bankruptcy
 Contracts
Holguin, Jaime B. Title: Commissioner Company: Maricopa County Superior Court

Address: 201 S. 4th Avenue City: Phoenix State: Az Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes
Phone: (602)506-5349 Fax: (602)379-0093 E-mail: jbholguin@qwest.net Area of
Practice
 Judicial
Jimenez, Nilda Title: Certified Paralegal Company: Scott Ambrose Law Firm, P.C.
Address: 11000 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 185 City: Scottsdale State: AZ Zip: 85373
nildajimenez@hotmail.com Area of Practice
 Paralegal
Kallen, Cid R Title: President Company: PhoenixLaw Hispanic Law Students

Association Address: 4041 Noth Central Ave, Bldg C City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
85012 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (623)521-4513 E-mail: crkallen@phoenixlaw.org
Kavanagh, Brandon J Company: Gust Rosenfeld PLC Address: 201 E Washington,
Suite 800 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)257-
7425 Fax: (602)254-4878 E-mail: bkavanagh@gustlaw.com Area of Practice
 Contracts
 Corporate
 Government
 Real Estate
Larson, Jennifer M Company: Gust Rosenfeld PLC City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
jlarson@gustlaw.com Limón-Wynn, Monica A. Title: Partner Company: Snell &
Wilmer LLP Address: 400 E. Van Buren Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004
Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)382-6390 Fax: (602)382-6070 E-mail: mlimon-
wynn@swlaw.com Area of Practice
 Contracts
Lopez, Claudia Patricia Title: Associate Company: Winsor & Tirado PLC Address:
3101 N Central Ave Suite 1300 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking:
Yes Phone: (602)266-0292 Fax: (480)240-5915 E-mail: clopez@winsortirado.com
Area of Practice
 Bankruptcy
 General Civil
 Immigration
Lorona, Jess A. Company: Duncan, Lorona & Parks, PC Address: 411 N. Central,
Suite 520 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Phone: (602)253-9700 Fax: (602)258-4805
E-mail: jlorona@azlitigation.com Area of Practice
Maldonado, Ed Company: Law Office of Edward Maldonado Address: PO Box 33335

City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85067 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)449-1457 Fax:
(602)357-4962 E-mail: 33maldonado@gmail.com Area of Practice
 DUI
Mariscal, George E. Company: City of Phoenix Law Dept. City: Phoenix State: AZ
ted.mariscal@phoenix.gov Area of Practice
 Condemnation
 Construction
 Government
Martinez, Cyrus B. Company: Littler Mendelson City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85016
cmartinez@littler.com Area of Practice
McCarty, Elliott Company: McCarty Law Offices, LLC City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
85034 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)254-1131 Fax: (602)254-1135 E-mail:
Elliott.McCarty@azbar.org Area of Practice
 Immigration
Mendez, Mina E. Phone: (602)372-0268 Area of Practice

 Juvenile
Morales- Spelleri, Maria Company: Lewis and Roca LLP City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
mspelleri@lrlaw.com Morrison, Alicia M. Company: Morrison & Skupin PLLC
Address: 845 North 6th Avenue City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking:
Yes Phone: (602)232-2000 E-mail: alicia@morrisonskupin.com Moya, P. Robert
Company: Insight Enterprises Address: 1305 W. Auto Drive City: Tempe State: AZ Zip:
85284 Phone: (480)333-3045 Fax: (480)760-7162 E-mail: prmoya@insight.com Area
of Practice
 Corporate
Navidad, Alex E. Company: Navidad, Leal & Silva, P.L.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ
Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)257-0000 Fax: (602)251-3170 E-mail:
alexnavidad@yahoo.com Area of Practice
 Appellate (Criminal)
 Asset Forfeiture
 Civil Forfeiture
 DUI
 Immigration
 Juvenile
Olivas, Amelia N Company: Michael COrdova, PC Address: 1700 N 7th Street City:
Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85006 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)265-6700 Fax:
(602)265-5269 E-mail: amelia.olivas@azbar,org Ongaro, Salvador Company: Davis
Miles, PLLC Address: 560 W. Brown Road, 3rd Floor City: Mesa State: AZ Zip: 85201
salongaro@yahoo.com Area of Practice
 Immigration
 Securities
Ordonez, Karina Janine Title: JD Candidate 2011 Address: 1225 N 36th St. Unit 2123
City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85008 Spanish Speaking: Yes E-mail: kordone@asu.edu
Ortega, Jr., Daniel R. Company: Roush, McCraken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega
Address: 650 N. Third Ave. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: Yes
Phone: (602)253-3554 Fax: (602)340-1896 E-mail: danny@rmgmo.com Area of
Practice
Padilla, Joe Company: City of Scottsdale Address: 3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd City:
Scottsdale State: AZ Zip: 85251 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (480)312-2405 Fax:
(480)312-2548 E-mail: jpadilla@scottsdaleaz.gov Area of Practice
 Government
 Planning and Zoning
Pastor, Robert Company: Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally PLC City:
(602)266-2223 E-mail: Pastor@hmpmlaw.com Area of Practice
 Civil Rights
 General Civil
Pineda, Susanna Title: Judge Company: Maricopa County Superior Court Address:
125 West Washington, Suite 211 City: Phoenix State: Az Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking:
Yes Phone: (602)372-2958 E-mail: pinedas@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov Area of
Practice
 Judge
Quezada, Martin J. Company: Law Office of Martin J. Quezada, PLLC Address: 125
E. Coronado Rd. City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone:
(602)253-0887 Fax: (602)253-0871 E-mail: MQuezadaLaw@GMail.com Area of
Practice
 Family Law
 General Civil
 Immigration
Rivera, Jose de Jesus Company: Haralson, Miller, Pitt & McAnally, PLC Address:
2800 North Central Avenue., Suite 840 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Phone:
(602)266-5557 Fax: (602)266-223 E-mail: jrivera@hmpmlaw.com Area of Practice
 International
Rodriguez-Perez, Amy Lynn Title: Paralegal/Law Student Company: Western

International University Address: 5232 W. Windrose Drive City: Glendale State: AZ Zip:
85304 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)314-5846 E-mail: arodnaz@yahoo.com
Area of Practice
 Corporate
 International
Sampanes, James John Company: City of Phoenix Law Department City: Phoenix
State: AZ Zip: 85003 Spanish Speaking: No Phone: (602)262-6761 E-mail:
james.sampanes@phoenix.gov Area of Practice
Sanchez, Jessica S. Title: Associate Company: Udall, Shumway, & Lyons Address: 30
West First Street City: Mesa State: AZ Zip: 85201 Spanish Speaking: No Phone:
(480)461-5368 Fax: (480)833-9392 E-mail: jss@udallshumway.com Area of Practice
 Education
Silva, Margarita Company: Navidad, Leal & Silva, P.L.C. City: Phoenix State: AZ
margarita.silva@azbar.org Area of Practice
 Immigration
Silvas, Miguel S. Company: Law Office of Manuel S. Silvas City: Phoenix State: AZ
mssakapelon@aol.com Area of Practice
Siqueiros, Nicole Title: Attorney Company: Hallier Law Firm Address: 3216 N. 3rd St.,
Suite 300 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)285-
5500 Area of Practice
 Family Law
Slack-Mendez, Charles J. Title: Attorney Company: Law Office of Charles J. Slack-

Mendez Address: 2710 South Rural Road City: Tempe State: AZ Zip: 85282 Spanish
Speaking: Yes Phone: (480)829-1166 Fax: (480)829-4938 E-mail: charlesslack@cox.net
Area of Practice
 Bankruptcy
 Civil Rights
 Litigation
 Professional Malpractice
Song Ong, Honorable Roxanne K. Title: Chief Presiding Judge Company: Phoenix
Municipal Court Address: 300 W. Washington Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85003
roxanne.song.ong@phoenix.gov Stoll, Bianca A. Title: Esq. Company: Snell &
Wilmer LLP Address: 400 E Van Buren One Az Center 18-18 City: Phoenix State: AZ
bstoll@swlaw.com Area of Practice
 Banking
 Corporate
 Securities
Testini, Gaetano John Title: Partner Company: Wilmer, Messer and Testini, PLC
Address: 202 East Earll Drive Suite 400 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish
Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)532-0500 Fax: (602)532-0304 E-mail:
Gtestini@wmtlegal.com Area of Practice
 Workers' Compensation
 Social Security
Thompson, Arturo Alejandro Title: Associate Company: Polsinelli Shughart P C

Address: 3636 North Central Ave., Suite 1200 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012
athompson@polsinelli.com Area of Practice
 Bankruptcy
 Intellectual Property
Torgenson, John Company: Fennemore Craig Address: 3003 N. Central Avenue, Suite
2600 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: No E-mail:
jtorgens@fclaw.com Area of Practice
 General Civil
Torres, Israel G Title: Managing Partner Company: Torres Garza Law Group, PLLC
Address: 202 East Earll Drive, Suite 400 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish
Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)385-0170 Fax: (602)626-8889 E-mail:
israel@torresgarza.com Area of Practice
 Administrative/Regulatory
 Construction
 Government
 Land Use Regulation and Litigation
 Planning and Zoning
 Real Estate
Valencia, Guadalupe Sosa Title: Senior Policy Advisor Company: Arizona State
Senate, Democratic Staff Address: 3336 E. Oak Street City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip:
85008 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)954-6552 Fax: (602)417-3240 E-mail:
guadalupe50@msn.com Zapata, Julio M. Company: Fennemore Craig Address: 3003
N. Central, Suite 2600 City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85012 Spanish Speaking: No Phone:
(602)916-5365 Fax: (602)916-5565 E-mail: jzapata@fclaw.com Area of Practice
 Bankruptcy
 Collections
 Contracts
 General Civil
 Litigation
 Real Estate
 Suretyship
Zapata-Rossa, Marian Company: Quarles & Brady Address: Two North Central
Avenue City: Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 85004 Spanish Speaking: Yes Phone: (602)229-
5447 Fax: (602)420-5181 E-mail: mzapata@quarles.com Area of Practice
Zaragoza, Juan Pablo G. State: AZ Spanish Speaking: Yes E-mail:

jpzaragoza@bskarizonalaw.com Area of Practice
 Corporate
 Estate Planning
 International
 Probate/Trusts/Wills
 Tax
Zubey, Lizzette Alameda Company: Lewis and Roca, LLP City: Phoenix State: AZ
lzubey@lrlaw.com
MEDIA CONTACTS
Rick DeBruhl
Chief Communications Officer
602-340-7335
rick.debruhl@staff.azbar.org
Ethical Duty Under ER 3.3
ER 3.3(a)(3) plainly requires an attorney to refrain from knowingly offering false

evidence. Further, when an attorney later learns that he or she has offered false material
evidence to a tribunal, including evidence offered directly by a client or former client,[7]
the attorney must take “reasonable remedial measures, including if necessary, disclosure
to the tribunal.” ER 3.3(a)(3); see also Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29.23
(discussing analogous section of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers
(2000) which provides that duty of candor to the tribunal survives termination of the
attorney-client relationship). The duty to take remedial measures lasts until “the
conclusion of the proceeding.” ER 3.3 cmt. [13]. A proceeding is deemed concluded
when the result of the proceeding has been upheld on appeal or the time for the appeal
has otherwise expired. Id. In this case, then, the Committee must examine (1) whether
Attorney “knows” that false evidence was presented, (2) whether the purportedly false
evidence was offered to a “tribunal,” (3) whether the evidence was “material,” (4) what
“reasonable remedial measures” are necessary under the circumstances, and (5) the
duration of Attorney’s obligation to take such measures.[8]
1) Attorney’s Knowledge
Attorney here first received an indication of Client’s false testimony from a third party.
Attorney then privately confronted Client about the third party’s allegations, and Client
admitted the perjury in addition to other material facts. To Attorney, these admissions
conclusively established the falsity of Client’s prior testimony. Thus, here there is no
dispute that Attorney now “knows” that Attorney unwittingly offered Client’s false
testimony. See ER 1.0(f) (stating that “actual knowledge of the fact in question” satisfies
ER’s knowledge requirement); Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 4 (stating that attorney’s “knowledge”
of client’s false testimony is “ordinarily based on the client’s own admissions to the
attorney”). Cf. Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29.21 (emphasizing that “knowing” of a
client’s false testimony means more than a mere “suggestion” or suspicion that the client
has committed perjury).
05-05: Candor to Tribunal; Client Perjury; Confidentiality

07/2005
This opinion reviews the ethical dilemma posed when an attorney learns that, due to a
former client’s apparent perjury in a civil proceeding, the attorney has offered false
material evidence to a tribunal. The Committee concludes that the Arizona Rules of
Professional Conduct, under the facts of this case, provide that the attorney’s duty of
candor to the tribunal overcomes the ethical duty of preserving the former client’s
confidences and that the attorney must take reasonable remedial measures effective to
undo the effect of the false evidence with respect to the affected tribunal.
FACTS[1][2]
The inquiring Attorney represented Client in an unemployment compensation
proceeding. Client’s employer had discharged Client, accusing Client of specified
wrongdoing. Denying the allegations, Client sought unemployment benefits. An
examiner denied Client any unemployment benefits on the basis of dishonesty and
committing a criminal offense against the employer. Client has never been charged with
any criminal offense arising from the employer’s allegations. Client retained Attorney to
appeal the denial of the unemployment claim. Attorney and Client participated in an
appeal before a Department of Economic Security single-member “appeal tribunal.” See
generally A.R.S. § 23-671 (describing appeal process from examiner’s decision).
The employer introduced certain evidence on appeal supporting its allegation of Client’s
dishonesty. Attorney, through Client’s testimony, countered that evidence and offered
additional evidence supporting Client’s case. The appeal tribunal ultimately ruled that the
employer did not prove wrongdoing on Client’s part and awarded Client unemployment
benefits. Subsequent to the hearing, a third party told Attorney that Client had not been
truthful with Attorney or in testimony before the appeal tribunal. Attorney confronted
Client about the alleged perjury, and Client admitted the perjury and other material facts
to Attorney, establishing that false evidence had been presented to the tribunal. After
Attorney privately remonstrated with Client about the need to correct the record, Client
discharged Attorney. Attorney believes that although the employer has appealed the
hearing officer’s decision, Client has found other employment and is no longer receiving
unemployment compensation.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Must an attorney take reasonable remedial measures upon learning of a former client’s
false testimony to an unemployment compensation hearing officer, and, if so, what
measures must be taken?[3]
RELEVANT ETHICAL RULES[4]
ER 1.0 Terminology
(d) “Fraud” or “fraudulent” denotes conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or
procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive.
(f) “Knowingly,” “known,” or “knows” denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question.
A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.
(m) “Tribunal” denotes a court, an arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding or a legislative

body, administrative agency or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity. A
legislative body, administrative agency or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity
when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or
parties, will render a legal judgment directly affecting a party’s interests in a particular
matter.
ER 1.6 Confidentiality of Information
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless
the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry
out the representation or the disclosure is permitted or required by paragraphs (b), (c) or
(d) or ER 3.3(a)(3).
ER 1.9 Duties to Former Clients
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client
except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the
information has become generally known; or
(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit
or require with respect to a client.
ER 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of
material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; [or]
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a
witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know
of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary,
disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony
of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a
person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct
related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary,
disclosure to the tribunal.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the
proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise
protected by ER 1.6.
RELEVANT ARIZONA ETHICS OPINIONS
Opinions 00-02, 01-14, 93-10, 92-02, 91-02, 80-27.
OPINION[5]
This opinion addresses the continuing quandary of an attorney’s ethical obligations upon
learning that a client has testified falsely before a civil tribunal.[6] Under the previously
used Arizona Code of Professional Responsibility, the ethical rules generally did not
require or permit an attorney to reveal confidential information learned from a client even
in the face of knowledge that the client committed perjury. See generally Ariz. Op. 80-27
(noting that under DR 7-102(B)(1) (as in effect on December 12, 1980), an attorney was
not ethically required to reveal a client’s fraud on a tribunal if to do so would violate the
client’s confidential communication to the attorney as defined by then-existing DR 4-
101).
Under the present Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, however, the balance has
shifted away from preserving client confidences and towards the attorney’s duty of
candor to the tribunal. ER 3.3(c) explicitly requires the disclosure of a client’s false
testimony notwithstanding that the attorney “knows” of the false testimony via a client’s
confidential communication. The Rules make the policy determination that insuring the
integrity of the decision-making process trumps, in some instances, a lawyer’s traditional
duty to protect a client’s confidences. Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 3-4 (recognizing that the
“tension” between an attorney’s duty to a client and to the court has been resolved in
favor of the court in the context of a client giving false evidence); Geoffrey C. Hazard &
William Hodes, Jr., 2 The Law of Lawyering §§ 29-14, at p. 29-25 (3d ed., Aspen 2004)
[hereinafter, Hazard, The Law of Lawyering].
Ethical Duty Under ER 3.3
ER 3.3(a)(3) plainly requires an attorney to refrain from knowingly offering false

evidence. Further, when an attorney later learns that he or she has offered false material
evidence to a tribunal, including evidence offered directly by a client or former client,[7]
the attorney must take “reasonable remedial measures, including if necessary, disclosure
to the tribunal.” ER 3.3(a)(3); see also Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29.23
(discussing analogous section of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers
(2000) which provides that duty of candor to the tribunal survives termination of the
attorney-client relationship). The duty to take remedial measures lasts until “the
conclusion of the proceeding.” ER 3.3 cmt. [13]. A proceeding is deemed concluded
when the result of the proceeding has been upheld on appeal or the time for the appeal
has otherwise expired. Id. In this case, then, the Committee must examine (1) whether
Attorney “knows” that false evidence was presented, (2) whether the purportedly false
evidence was offered to a “tribunal,” (3) whether the evidence was “material,” (4) what
“reasonable remedial measures” are necessary under the circumstances, and (5) the
duration of Attorney’s obligation to take such measures.[8]
1) Attorney’s Knowledge
Attorney here first received an indication of Client’s false testimony from a third party.
Attorney then privately confronted Client about the third party’s allegations, and Client
admitted the perjury in addition to other material facts. To Attorney, these admissions
conclusively established the falsity of Client’s prior testimony. Thus, here there is no
dispute that Attorney now “knows” that Attorney unwittingly offered Client’s false
testimony. See ER 1.0(f) (stating that “actual knowledge of the fact in question” satisfies
ER’s knowledge requirement); Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 4 (stating that attorney’s “knowledge”
of client’s false testimony is “ordinarily based on the client’s own admissions to the
attorney”). Cf. Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29.21 (emphasizing that “knowing” of a
client’s false testimony means more than a mere “suggestion” or suspicion that the client
has committed perjury).
2) Definition of Tribunal
The duty found in ER 3.3 applies to all “tribunals,” not just courts of law. ER 1.0(m)
defines tribunal in broad terms. It includes any administrative agency acting in an
adjudicative capacity involving a neutral decision-maker who receives evidence and/or
legal argument from opposing parties and is then to render a legally binding judgment
affecting the parties’ interests. The appeal hearing process described earlier fits this
definition of a “tribunal.” See A.R.S. § 23-671 (describing “appeal tribunal” process
including requirements that tribunal be impartial, conduct a fair hearing at which “all
interested parties” have an opportunity to be present and heard, and to render a decision);
see also Hazard, The Law of Lawyering at § 29-3, p. 29-6 (discussing intended breadth
of “tribunal”). Cf. Ill. Ethics Op. 99-04 (finding that a hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge of the Social Security Administration was a “tribunal” under Illinois version
of ER 3.3).
3) Material Evidence
It seems equally clear that the false testimony in this case was “material evidence.”
Without recounting so much of the facts that it would in all likelihood identify Attorney
and Client, Client made specific false denials under oath to directly refute the employer’s
evidence. Attorney unwittingly used this false testimony to discredit the employer’s proof
of Client’s dishonest behavior. Although the Committee cannot know with certainty that
this evidence swayed the appeal tribunal’s decision, it must have been considered
“material” to it because the false evidence went directly to points in dispute and was
relevant to the proceedings and decision. See Ariz. Op. 93-10, at 4 (deeming client’s
inconsistent and irreconcilable testimony in two separate proceedings material evidence).
4a) Reasonable Remedial Measures – Generally
Given Attorney’s actual knowledge of having unwittingly offered false material evidence
resulting from Client’s deception, Attorney now has an ethical duty under ER 3.3(a)(3) to
take “reasonable remedial measures.” The Committee stresses, however, that disclosures
made pursuant to ER 3.3 should be narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to
undo the effect of the tainted evidence. See ER 3.3 cmt. [10] (stating that purpose of
reasonable remedial measures is to “undo the effect of the false evidence”). Cf. ER 1.6(b)
& cmt. [12] (permitting disclosure of client confidences only to the extent necessary to
accomplish the purposes set forth in the Rule).
Normally, the first remedial measure should be to confidentially approach and attempt to
persuade the client that the client should cooperate in seeking to withdraw the false
evidence. Such private remonstration should also include the advice that the attorney is
ethically bound to take remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the
tribunal of the false evidence. If the client agrees to seek withdrawal of the false
evidence, the attorney should proceed accordingly by moving to withdraw the tainted
evidence from the record but without disclosing the fact of the client’s misconduct.[9] In
most circumstances this should be a sufficient reasonable remedial measure, if the timing
of the withdrawal allows the tribunal to react to the change in evidence (e.g., the
proceeding is still pending). If pressed for a reason why the evidence is being withdrawn,
the attorney should cite client confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and, if
appropriate, the client’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See ABA
Formal Op. 98-412, at 2 & n.5 (recommending as one course of action the attorney’s
withdrawal of the false evidence and reliance on the cited privileges).
Even if the client does not agree to the withdrawal of the evidence, the next reasonable
measure generally would be for the attorney to move to withdraw the evidence from the
tribunal’s consideration without the client’s consent. If an attorney can refuse to offer
evidence the attorney reasonably believes to be false,[10] see ER 3.3(a)(3), there seems
to be no good reason why the attorney could not move to withdraw evidence from a
tribunal’s consideration that he or she knows to be false. This measure, too, should be
done without revealing any client misconduct. The attorney should cite client
confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and the client’s Fifth Amendment privilege, if
appropriate, should the tribunal insist upon an explanation why the attorney is seeking
withdrawal of the evidence. Again, whether this might be a sufficient remedial measure
depends on whether the tribunal could effectively react if it grants the motion to withdraw
the evidence.[11]
In cases unlike this one, where the false evidence has not been offered, but the client so
intends and cannot be dissuaded from that course, another possible reasonable remedial
measure might be seeking to withdraw from the representation of the client. See
generally ER 1.16(b) (listing grounds for termination of the representation). Arguably,
however, in some circumstances mere withdrawal from the representation may be
insufficient under the present version of the Rule.[12]
When an attorney withdraws from the representation (or, as here, is discharged), the
attorney may reasonably conclude that the termination of the representation will not undo
the effect of the tainted evidence and so further remedial measures might be necessary. In
that circumstance, the attorney should advise the client that retention of successor counsel
would be in the client’s best interests because the withdrawing (or discharged) attorney
has a duty to take reasonable remedial measures including possibly informing the tribunal
of the false evidence.[13]
If neither withdrawal of the evidence nor termination of the representation would

effectively remediate the fraud, the attorney should consider disclosing the client’s
misconduct to the tribunal. This drastic step should be taken only after all other
reasonable measures have first been tried and failed or carefully considered and rejected.
The Committee believes that in most instances an attorney’s motion to withdraw
evidence should be sufficient to remediate the fraud because such a motion is reasonably
calculated to sufficiently warn the tribunal of the situation concerning the unreliability of
the false evidence and “the tribunal would no longer be powerless to defend itself
against” it. Hazard, The Law of Lawyering, § 29-21, p. 29-35. Disclosure of the client’s
misconduct (as opposed to putting the tribunal on notice that certain evidence should not
be considered as part of the record) would seem to be rarely, if at all, necessary to undo
“the effect of the false evidence,” the goal behind requiring remedial measures.
Thus, and unless the ethical obligation under ER 3.3 has run its time limit, an attorney is
ethically obligated to “make such disclosure to the tribunal as is reasonably necessary to
remedy the situation” even if to do so would otherwise contravene ER 1.6. ER 3.3 cmt.
[10]. Further, the fact that a client may ultimately face a prosecution for perjury is not a
reason for an attorney to withhold disclosure. See ER 3.3 cmt. [11]; see also Ariz. Op.
93-10, at 4 (stating that if a lawyer has “knowledge” of a client’s perjury in a proceeding
in which the lawyer represented the client, then ER 3.3 requires disclosure to the tribunal
if intermediate remedial measures prove ineffective).
4b) Reasonable Remedial Measures In This Case
Assuming Attorney’s duty under ER 3.3 has not terminated because the proceedings have
concluded (see 5b infra), Attorney has some reasonable remedial measures still available.
As noted earlier, Attorney has already privately remonstrated Client. This effort was
unsuccessful. Despite Attorney’s appropriate efforts to convince Client to take proper
remedial measures, Client rejected that advice and discharged Attorney. The fact of that
discharge limits the remaining available remedial measures.
First, because Attorney is no longer counsel of record, Attorney cannot move the tribunal
to withdraw the tainted evidence from the proceedings even without Client’s consent.
Second, Attorney can no longer move to withdraw from the representation. Even if
withdrawal of the representation were possible in this case, however, it would not be a
“reasonable remedial measure” because Attorney’s withdrawal by itself would not cure
the fraud by undoing the effect of the tainted evidence.
In these circumstances, the Committee believes Attorney should consider as an option

enlisting the aid of Client’s present legal counsel, if any. See Restatement (Third) of the
Law Governing Lawyers § 120, cmt. h (2000) (“If a lawyer is discharged by a client or
withdraws . . . the lawyer’s obligations [of candor to the tribunal] under this Section are
not thereby terminated. In such an instance, a reasonable remedial measure may consist
of disclosing the matter to successor counsel.”). Although this would not relieve Attorney
of Attorney’s own ethical obligations to the tribunal under ER 3.3, the combined efforts
of former and successor counsel in private remonstrance with Client may persuade Client
to consent to seek withdrawal of the false evidence. In addition, because Attorney is no
longer Client’s counsel of record, only successor counsel of record, if any, can move to
withdraw the tainted evidence without Client’s consent. Should this step succeed either
because the Client ultimately relents and allows any successor counsel to move to
withdraw the false evidence or because any successor counsel so moves even without
Client’s consent, Attorney would have taken a reasonable remedial measure sufficient to
undo the effect of the tainted evidence and, thus, satisfied Attorney’s personal obligations
under ER 3.3(a)(3) notwithstanding that Attorney did not personally inform the tribunal.
[14]
If there is no successor counsel of record, Attorney’s only apparent option is to inform

the tribunal by letter (with a copy to Client) that specific evidence is unreliable.[15]
Again, such a step should normally not include an express revelation of Client’s
misconduct. The Committee is of the opinion that in this case such a communication
would be an effective remedial measure while not disclosing more than what is necessary
to undo the effect of the false evidence.[16]
This case also presents the related question of the proper “tribunal” Attorney should
notify. The Committee believes that the proper entity is that entity which has jurisdiction
of the proceeding at the time the disclosure is made. Thus, Attorney must determine, by
examining the appropriate statutes, rules, and case law, whether the original examiner,
hearing officer, or any subsequent entity is the appropriate “tribunal” to which to make
any disclosures.
5a) Duration of Ethical Obligation – Generally
ER 3.3(c) makes clear that the ethical obligation to take reasonable remedial measures
survives the end of the attorney-client relationship. The ethical obligation terminates only
when the tainted proceedings have concluded. If the time for appeal or other review has
not yet expired and there has not yet been a final decision on the matter, then the ethical
obligation to inform the tribunal exists. ER 3.3(c) & cmt. [13]. Otherwise, the duty to
take remedial measures no longer exists because the proceedings would be deemed to
have concluded.
5b) Duration Of Ethical Obligation In This Case
In this particular instance, Attorney must learn whether the proceedings have reached
their “conclusion.” Whether proceedings have concluded is ultimately a legal question.
Certainly, if the original appeal of the tribunal decision to award compensation is still
under active review, either by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board or the
judiciary, the proceeding is not concluded and Attorney’s ethical obligation to take
reasonable remedial measures continues.
If that decision is no longer under review, but Client is still receiving benefits which can
be modified at any time, then the proceeding may not be concluded, and Attorney’s
ethical obligation may continue. See Kan. Op. 98-01 (requiring a lawyer to take remedial
measures where the lawyer learned of a client’s false testimony made in a workmen’s
compensation proceeding and the client was still receiving benefits which could be
modified at any time).
If however, as Attorney believes, Client is no longer receiving unemployment
compensation and the unemployment case is now closed, Attorney’s ethical duties have
terminated regardless of whether the proceeding could be re-opened at any future time or
a new and separate proceeding could be instituted against Client for the recovery of
previously paid compensation. Otherwise, there would never be a conclusion to these
types of administrative proceedings, and the Committee believes that such an open-ended
ethical obligation would be inconsistent with the “practical time limit” intended by ER
3.3(c). See ER 3.3 cmt. [13].
Accordingly, Attorney should ascertain the present procedural posture of Client’s award
and then consult applicable statutes, rules, and case law to determine if the proceeding is
concluded. See generally Casillas v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Security, 739 P.2d 800, 802
(Ariz. Ct. App. 1986) (discussing the finality of DES decisions); Rogers v. Arizona Dep’t
of Econ. Security, 644 P.2d 292, 293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982) (same).
CONCLUSION
Unless the proceedings are deemed concluded (e.g., an appeal ended or the time to take
an appeal has expired), an attorney in a civil proceeding must take reasonable remedial
measures upon learning that he or she has unwittingly offered false material evidence due
to a client’s deception. The duty to take such measures applies only when the attorney has
actual knowledge of the false evidence and the evidence is material. Reasonable remedial
measures are to be taken in steps and should be no broader than necessary to undo the
effect of the tainted evidence. The first step should normally be a private consultation
with the client explaining the need to withdraw the tainted evidence and advising that the
attorney has a duty to take remedial steps even if the client refuses.
Failing that attempt at counseling, the attorney’s second step should be to seek
withdrawal of the evidence from the tribunal’s consideration without the client’s consent.
The attorney can cite ethical obligations as the reason for seeking withdrawal of the
evidence, but should normally not inform the tribunal of the client’s misconduct (e.g.,
that the client committed perjury), if such a withdrawal of the evidence would undo the
effect of the false evidence. In that circumstance, an attorney must also consider whether
he or she has a conflict of interest with the client necessitating an attempt to withdraw
from the representation.
As a last step and only if no other steps would undo the effect of the false evidence, an
attorney must make an explicit disclosure of the client’s misconduct to the tribunal. In
addition, if an attorney has terminated, or been discharged from, a representation and the
former client has retained successor counsel, the former attorney should consider whether
involving successor counsel would be part of an appropriate remedial measure.
_________
[1] Formal Opinions of the Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct are advisory
in nature only and are not binding in any disciplinary or other legal proceedings. © State
Bar of Arizona 2003
[2] In keeping with the Committee’s confidentiality policy, identification information is

omitted. See State Bar of Arizona Comm. on the Rules of Prof’l Conduct, STATEMENT
OF JURISDICTIONAL POLICIES 5 (Jan. 20, 2000).
[3] This opinion does not address a lawyer’s option to voluntarily reveal client
confidences reasonably necessary to prevent a client from committing certain crimes or
frauds. See ER 1.6(d) (1) – (2).
[4] All citations to the Ethical Rules and related Comments are to 17A Ariz. Rev. Stat.
Ann., Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 42 (West 2004).
[5] This opinion does not address whether an attorney has any legal duty to protect
confidential client communications. See A.R.S. § 12-2234 (establishing attorney-client
privilege in civil proceedings); A.R.S. § 13-4062(2) (establishing attorney-client privilege
in criminal proceedings). Opinions on the law are beyond the Committee’s jurisdiction.
State Bar of Arizona Comm. on the Rules of Prof’l Conduct, STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTIONAL POLICIES 6(a) (Jan. 20, 2000).
[6] This opinion does not concern an attorney’s ethical duties upon learning of a client’s
false testimony made during the course of a criminal proceeding. Criminal proceedings
present legal and constitutional issues not applicable in civil matters. See generally Nix v.
Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986); ER 3.3 cmt. [7] (citing State v. Jefferson, 126 Ariz. 341
(1980), and Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1978), and recognizing that some
courts have held that the duties imposed by ER 3.3 “is subordinate” to constitutional
considerations present in criminal proceedings); Geoffrey C. Hazard & W. William
Hodes, Jr., 2 The Law of Lawyering §§ 29-15 – 29-20 (3d ed., Aspen 2004) (discussing
client perjury in context of criminal case representation); Ariz. Op. 2000-02, at 6-8
(same).
[7] An attorney owes similar ethical duties of confidentiality to former clients as to

existing clients. ER 1.9(c).
[8] Because each of the five elements must be present to trigger the duty under ER 3.3(a)
(3), each element is potentially a “threshold” element, i.e., an element which if not
present renders it unnecessary to determine the existence of the remaining elements.
Because the Committee seeks to provide guidance to members on all the elements, the
Committee chooses to discuss all of them notwithstanding that in this case Attorney’s
duty may have lapsed due to the “conclusion” of the proceedings.” See Parts 5a and 5b,
infra.
[9] The Committee envisions in most cases such a motion being made to the tribunal with
notice to all appropriate parties. This opinion does not condone inappropriate ex parte
communications with a tribunal. See ER 3.5(b) (prohibiting unauthorized ex parte
communications).
[10] This right to refuse to offer such evidence does not extend to the testimony of a
criminal defendant. See ER 3.3(a)(3).
[11] Whether the lawyer’s withdrawal of evidence without the client’s consent creates a
conflict of interest under ER 1.7(a)(2) is something the lawyer placed in that situation
must determine on a case by case basis. See ER 1.16(b) (describing when an attorney
may terminate a representation).
[12] The Committee recognizes that an argument could be made that even if an attorney
had forewarning of a client’s intent to perpetrate a fraud on a tribunal, mere withdrawal
may be insufficient. ER 3.3(b) requires an attorney to “take reasonable remedial
measures” when the attorney “knows that a person intends to engage” in “criminal or
fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.” Under a prior version of the rule, a simple
withdrawal would have been sufficient because the rule only forbade an attorney from
“assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.” ER 3.3(a)(2) (1998). Thus, mere
withdrawal was sufficient under that Rule because the attorney was no longer “assisting”
the client. See ABA Formal Op. 98-412. Under present ER 3.3(b), however, an attorney
is no longer simply required to “avoid assisting” the client but appears to have an
affirmative duty to warn the court of the impending fraud if mere withdrawal would not
deter the client. Because Attorney has already been discharged in this case, however, this
opinion need not address this issue.
[13] In cases involving the termination of the representation and notwithstanding that an
attorney may have concluded that further reasonable remedial measures are necessary
under ER 3.3(a)(3), the attorney nonetheless owes the former client ethical duties under
ER 1.9 and ER 4.3 (if no successor counsel is retained) to the extent those duties are not
superseded by ER 3.3(a)(3).
[14] The facts of any given case may lead to the reasonable conclusion that not involving
successor counsel and, instead, informing the tribunal directly would be the remedial
measure that undoes the effect of the tainted evidence while doing the least harm to a
former client. Thus, attorneys who have terminated, or been discharged from, a
representation should consider whether contacting any successor counsel or directly
informing the relevant tribunal best fulfills the ethical obligations under ER 3.3 while
doing the least damage to the former client’s case.
[15] Whether the tribunal chooses to inform the opposing counsel and party remains a
decision for the tribunal and subject to any legal and ethical requirements operating on
the tribunal.
[16] There is no talismanic language for the contents of such a letter. So long as the letter
is reasonably calculated to put the tribunal on notice that certain evidence is unreliable
and that Attorney would not have offered the evidence if Attorney had known of certain
facts at the time Attorney introduced the evidence, the Committee believes that
Attorney’s ethical obligations are satisfied.
ER 8.4 . Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or

induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness
or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official; or
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of

applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
ER 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of a material fact or law to a third person;
ER 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

***
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;

REGULATION OF NONLAWYERS
There are times when people will tell you they can give you legal advice. Caution: Only
Arizona lawyers can advise you about your legal rights in this state. The following
questions and answers help explain more about the unauthorized practice of law.
Jump to Unauthorized Practice of Law Advisory Opinions

Legal action taken against non-lawyers
Who regulates the conduct of non-lawyers when they are acting like lawyers?
Rule 31 of the Arizona Supreme Court gives the State Bar of Arizona the authority to
investigate allegations of unauthorized practice of law and to file and prosecute actions
and proceedings related to such activities. The State Bar of Arizona acts as the
prosecutor in unauthorized cases, files the cases with the superior courts, and trials are
held before judges of the superior courts.
The Board of Certified Legal Document Preparers has the authority to investigate and
prosecute actions and proceedings against Certified Legal Document Preparers.
Which organization has jurisdiction over the practice of law?

The Arizona Supreme Court affirms its jurisdiction over the practice of law in Rule 31 of
the Supreme Court Rules. The Supreme Court of Arizona has the inherent authority to
regulate and prevent the practice of law by individuals who are not admitted to practice
law in Arizona.
What is the "practice of law?"

The practice of law is defined by Arizona Supreme Court Rule. Rule 31(a)2B states:
Practice of law means providing legal advice or services to another by:
•Preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal rights for a
specific person or entity;
•Preparing or expressing legal opinions;
•Representing another in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other
formal dispute resolution process such as arbitrations and mediations;
•Preparing any document through any medium for filing in any court, administrative
agency or tribunal for a specific person or entity; or
•Negotiating legal rights or responsibilities for a specific person or entity.
What is the "unauthorized practice of law?"

The unauthorized practice of law is defined by Arizona Supreme Court Rule. Rule
31(a)2A states:
Unauthorized practice of law includes but is not limited to:
•Engaging in the practice of law by persons or entities not authorized to practice pursuant
to to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d); or
•Using the designations "lawyer," "attorney at law," counselor at law," "law," "law
office," "J.D.," "Esq.," or other equivalent words by any person or entity not authorized to
practice pursuant to to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant
to Rule 33(d), the use of which is reasonably likely to induce others to believe that the
person or entity is authorized to engage in the practice of law in this state.
Who can practice law in Arizona?

Only active members of the State Bar of Arizona and other persons who comply with the
Arizona Supreme Court's rules regarding the practice of law may practice law in Arizona.
Who can provide legal advice in Arizona?

Only attorneys admitted to the State Bar of Arizona may provide legal advice in Arizona.
What are "certified legal document preparers?"

The Legal Document Preparer Program certifies legal document preparers in Arizona.
Legal Document Prepares are certified individuals who prepare or provide legal
documents without the supervision of an attorney. Legal Document Preparers may
provide general legal information but may not give legal advice. Effective July 1, 2003,
all individuals and businesses preparing legal documents without the supervision of an
attorney in good standing with the State Bar of Arizona, must be certified pursuant to
Rule 31 and Arizona Code of Judicial Administration §7-208.
What is the Consumer Protection Committee?

The Consumer Protection Committee’s mission is to protect consumers from harm
caused by the unauthorized practice of law. The Committee is responsible for evaluating
and proposing rules to regulate the unauthorized practice of law, educating the public
about UPL, providing affirmative support for effective and accountable delivery of legal
services, and contributing to CLE programs.
What should I do if I am harmed by a non-lawyer acting like a lawyer?

Today, the State Bar of Arizona has the authority to bring an action to enforce rules
regarding non-lawyers engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. You may wish to
file a complaint regarding the conduct of the non-lawyer. The State Bar will review the
allegations and determine whether it is appropriate to prosecute the individual who
appears to be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law or the Bar may refer,
coordinate, and assist the investigation and prosecution of the matter by the Office of the
Attorney General, United States Bankruptcy Trustees, Certified Legal Document
Preparer Program or other agencies.
How do I make a complaint to the State Bar of Arizona?
You may make allegations regarding the unlicensed practice of law by contacting the
unauthorized practice of law attorney for the State Bar of Arizona at 4201 N. 24th Street,
Suite 200, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, or by telephone at 602-340-7292. Your complaint
must be in writing, preferably on a Bar form. If a Bar form is not used, be certain to tell
the Bar your name, address and phone number as well as the name, address and phone
number of the non-lawyer if you have that information. Then try to set forth the facts on
which your allegations are based. Attach copies of any court papers, documents, letters or
other materials that pertain to your allegations when you write the Bar office. Please do
not send the original documents. Otherwise, you can obtain a complaint form by calling
602-340-7292 or requesting one via e-mail.
How do I make a complaint about a Certified Legal Document Preparer?

You can make a complaint about a Certified Legal Document Preparer by completing the
complaint form found on the Certified Legal Document Preparer's Web site.
If I suffer a loss as a result of the unauthorized practice of law, can the the State Bar
get my money back?
The State Bar is authorized to seek restitution in appropriate cases. If a lawsuit is filed,
the State Bar will seek restitution but it will not seek to recover money damages for
you. The State Bar seeks in its lawsuits to enjoin the unauthorized practice of law in the
future. Sometimes as a result of a an unauthorized practice of law investigation, the
complaint is resolved by an agreement with the respondent that includes restitution to the
complaining person. However, the State Bar cannot promise such a result.
What happens after I file a complaint?

All matters received by the State Bar of Arizona are reviewed by Bar UPL Counsel to
determine if the Bar has jurisdiction to investigate the allegations. If the State Bar of
Arizona has jurisdiction, the inquiry is considered as a complaint. The complaint may be
referred to an investigator of the State Bar for investigation or may be investigated by
UPL Counsel. If the Bar determines that there is probable cause, the complaint may be
prosecuted in Superior Court.
Will the non-lawyer know about my complaint?

Probably. The nonlawyer may be sent a copy of your complaint during the course of the
investigation. Additionally, if the nonlawyer asks who complained, your name will be
given. Anonymity will only be granted in extreme circumstances and should be discussed
with the UPL attorney before filing a complaint.
What will filing an inquiry against a non-lawyer cost me?
No cost or fee is charged for filing an inquiry against a non-lawyer. All members of the
State Bar of Arizona are required to pay dues which cover the cost of the unlicensed
practice of law program. You may, however, be required to devote some of your time to
attending hearings and testifying at trial. When the superior court issues an injunction, the
non-lawyer may be ordered to pay the costs involved.
Are the records regarding cases against non-lawyers open to the public?
The Supreme Court Rules permits disclosure of certain information. This rule must be
consulted to determine what information is available to the public.
Will there be a trial?

If the State Bar recommends litigation, UPL Counsel will file a formal complaint against
the non-lawyer before the superior court. If there is no agreement reached by the State
Bar and the non-lawyer there will be a trial on the complaint.
The judge of the Superior Court will hear all relevant evidence, which may include the
complainant's testimony, that of the non-lawyer and any other witnesses. The judge then
reaches a decision and files an order. The order may enjoin the non-lawyer from further
activity and award restitution and cost.
What is the purpose of the investigation and prosecution of the unauthorized

practice of law?
The purpose of the unauthorized practice of law system is to protect the public. The State
Bar of Arizona and the courts can prevent an individual or company from continuing to
engage in the unauthorized practice of law by issuing a civil injunction or by entering
into an agreement to cease and desist engaging in the practice of law. Supreme Court
Rules permits disclosure of certain information.
The State Bar of Arizona, as a prosecutorial agency, does not and cannot give individual
legal service or advice to any person making allegations. Nor can the State Bar of
Arizona assist you in getting money damages.
However, the court may require restitution as part of its judgment. Any other loss you
may have sustained as a result of the conduct of the non-lawyer cannot be recovered
through a Bar unlicensed practice of law proceeding. If you have suffered a financial or
property loss, your rights must be enforced by the usual legal methods against the person
responsible for the loss.
In addition, the Arizona Bar has no authority to review a court decision on a particular
matter and the Bar's unauthorized practice of law system should never be used as a
substitute for an appeal of such cases.
What kinds of actions can be taken against a non-lawyer?

If the UPL attorney and the State Bar determine that the conduct does not involve the
unlicensed practice of law, that it is an isolated incident which will not be repeated and
will not result in a likelihood of future public harm, that the individual is no longer in
Arizona or that the complaining party does not wish to cooperate with the investigation,
the State Bar will close the case.
If the UPL attorney and the State Bar of Arizona determine that the individual did engage
in the unlicensed practice of law and that the activity is likely to continue, the State Bar
may request that the individual sign a cease and desist agreement that can be entered as
an order of the court. The non-lawyer will acknowledge that the conduct is the unlicensed
practice of law and will agree to refrain from engaging in the conduct in the future.
If the conduct involves the unlicensed practice of law and the individual will not sign a
cease and desist agreement, the UPL attorney and State Bar can recommend prosecution.
Prosecution is before the superior court and seeks a civil injunction which orders the non-
lawyer to stop engaging in UPL. The Bar can also bring an action before the Superior
Court for contempt.
If the conduct of the non-lawyer appears to be a violation of the consumer fraud statute,
the matter may also be referred to the Office of the Attorney General for their review and
investigation. If the conduct of the non-lawyer appears to violate Section 110 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code, the matter may also be referred to U. S. Bankruptcy
Trustees.
Complaints that allege unauthorized practice of law in the area of immigration may be
referred to the Office of the Attorney General for their review and investigation.
Unauthorized Practice of Law in immigration matters is a violation of Arizona Revised
Statutes that make such practice a felony.
What can I expect if I file an inquiry against a non-lawyer?

• You can expect that your inquiry will receive the State Bar of Arizona's prompt and full
attention.
• You can expect that every attempt will be made to deal with your inquiry in a manner
which is fair to both you and the individual about whom you inquire.
• You can expect to receive written notice of the status and disposition of your
complaint.
What shouldn't I expect if I file an inquiry against a non-lawyer?
Don't expect your allegation to be decided just because of what you claim to have
happened. Nor, in fairness to you, can the non-lawyer about whom you inquire expect the
matter to be decided just on the basis of his or her version of what happened. The final
decision must depend upon the weight of the available and relevant evidence and
testimony.
What should I know about immunity and confidentiality?

Once an inquiry is reviewed and a file is opened, the fact that a complaint is pending and
the status of the complaint can be disclosed. Once the matter is closed or proceeds to with
prosecution, the matter becomes public information and the part of the file defined as the
UPL record is available to anyone who wishes to see it. Review of files is available only
during specific days and at certain times. You should contact the State Bar of Arizona to
determine when files will be available. A fee for review and/or copies is required.
You and witnesses are not prohibited from talking about your problem with the non-
lawyer or revealing that you have made an inquiry with the State Bar of Arizona. You
may also give others copies of any documents you give to or receive from the State Bar
or the non-lawyer involved.
Because inquiries and complaints are not confidential, you do not have absolute
immunity from suit for filing your inquiry. The general law of libel and slander applies.
Regrettably, the State Bar cannot pre-review your inquiry to tell you if you have a good
case. Generally, you cannot be successfully sued if you do not act in bad faith or with
malice. If you are unsure, you should seek independent legal advice.
Unauthorized Practice of Law Advisory Opinions
The State Bar’s UPL (Unauthorized Practice of Law) Advisory Committee now provides
attorneys and consumers with non-binding written advisory opinions. The opinions
interpret the UPL Supreme Court Rules and the Certified Legal Document Preparer
Code.
Summaries of Recent Opinions
About the UPL Advisory Committee

The UPL Advisory Committee issues written advisory opinions. All opinions rendered
are non-binding and advisory only, based on the Committee's reading of the Arizona
Supreme Court Rules regarding the Practice of Law and the Certified Legal Document
Preparer Code. Although non-binding, these opinions constitute an important resource for
Arizona attorneys and the public to identify applicable rules, point out relevant UPL
Advisory opinions, provide other resources, and give guidance on practice of law
questions.
Request a UPL Opinion

The request for a written advisory opinion must be in writing, and either mailed, faxed, or
hand-delivered to an office of the State Bar of Arizona. The request should include all of
the operative facts upon which the request for opinion is based, and identify the specific
unauthorized practice of law question. Please include the name and address of the person,
and organization where relevant. The Committee will not consider or issue advisory
opinions for matters pending in any Arizona court or other tribunal; however, it may
requests as to pending issues from a court or tribunal directly.
For More Information

Contact Karen Boehmer, Unauthorized Practice of Law Attorney for the State Bar of
Arizona at 602-340-7266, or e-mail UPL@staff.azbar.org.
Mailing address:
Unauthorized Practice of Law Attorney
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85016

State Bar of Arizona Board of Governors and Good Legal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Bar of Arizona Board of Governors and Good Legal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Bar of Arizona Board of Governors and Good Legal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE BAR OF ARIZONA BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Bayham Jerman PLC

First Vice President

Office of the Governor

Second Vice President

Cantelme & Brown PLC

District 3 (Gila, Graham, and Greenlee Counties)

District 5 (Pima, Santa Cruz Counties)

District 6 (Maricopa County)

District 7 (La Paz and Yuma Counties)

District 8 (Pinal County)

Paul Schiff Berman

Cisneros, Milagros A. Company: Office of Federal Public Defender City: Phoenix

Cota, Francisca Company: Phoenix Municipal Court Address: 300 W. Washington

Escobedo, Esteban Title: Attorney Company: Law Offices of Esteban Escobedo

Flores, Christopher A. Company: Law Office of Christopher A. Flores City: Phoenix

Flores, Christopher A. Company: Law Office of Christopher A. Flores City: Phoenix

Fontes, Adrian P. Company: Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes Address: 111 W.

Herrera - Gonzales, Virginia Title: Assistant Attorney General Company: Office of

Holguin, Jaime B. Title: Commissioner Company: Maricopa County Superior Court

Kallen, Cid R Title: President Company: PhoenixLaw Hispanic Law Students

Maldonado, Ed Company: Law Office of Edward Maldonado Address: PO Box 33335

Mendez, Mina E. Phone: (602)372-0268 Area of Practice

Rodriguez-Perez, Amy Lynn Title: Paralegal/Law Student Company: Western

Slack-Mendez, Charles J. Title: Attorney Company: Law Office of Charles J. Slack-

Thompson, Arturo Alejandro Title: Associate Company: Polsinelli Shughart P C

Zaragoza, Juan Pablo G. State: AZ Spanish Speaking: Yes E-mail:

ER 3.3(a)(3) plainly requires an attorney to refrain from knowingly offering false

05-05: Candor to Tribunal; Client Perjury; Confidentiality

RELEVANT ETHICAL RULES[4]

(m) “Tribunal” denotes a court, an arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding or a legislative

ER 1.9 Duties to Former Clients

ER 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

RELEVANT ARIZONA ETHICS OPINIONS

Opinions 00-02, 01-14, 93-10, 92-02, 91-02, 80-27.

Ethical Duty Under ER 3.3

ER 3.3(a)(3) plainly requires an attorney to refrain from knowingly offering false

4a) Reasonable Remedial Measures – Generally

If neither withdrawal of the evidence nor termination of the representation would

4b) Reasonable Remedial Measures In This Case

In these circumstances, the Committee believes Attorney should consider as an option

If there is no successor counsel of record, Attorney’s only apparent option is to inform

5a) Duration of Ethical Obligation – Generally

5b) Duration Of Ethical Obligation In This Case

[2] In keeping with the Committee’s confidentiality policy, identification information is

[7] An attorney owes similar ethical duties of confidentiality to former clients as to

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of

ER 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

Jump to Unauthorized Practice of Law Advisory Opinions

Which organization has jurisdiction over the practice of law?

What is the "practice of law?"

What is the "unauthorized practice of law?"

Who can practice law in Arizona?

Who can provide legal advice in Arizona?