Legal Opinion

In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Mulhall

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1989No. SB-88-0018-DPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMERON, Justice.

I. JURISDICTION

The Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona has recommended that the respondent, Michael Andrew Mul-hall, be suspended from the practice of the law for 30 days. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz.R.S.Ct. 53(e), 17A A.R.S. 1

II. FACTS

The complainant in this case retained respondent in June of 1981 to represent her in connection with physical injuries and property damage sustained in an automobile accident. Respondent quickly settled the property damage claim.

Respondent did not believe the complainant’s injuries justified a large settlement.…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Matter of LevineArizona Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. McKechnieNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  3. In re CurtisArizona Supreme Court · 1995
  4. In Re Disciplinary Action Against McKechnieNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. HoffmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API