Matter of Murphy
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZLAKET, Chief Justice.
This disciplinary proceeding arises out of a commercial transaction in which respondent was both an investor and the attorney for other investors. Concluding that he breached ethical duties owed to the investment’s promoters, who were also clients of his law firm, a hearing committee recommended that respondent be suspended for at least two years. One committee member urged disbarment. The disciplinary commission rejected many of the committee’s factual findings, proposing instead a one-year suspension. Both the state bar and respondent appeal. We have…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Matter of NevilleArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, PappasArizona Supreme Court · 1988
- In Re ShannonArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- Matter of HooverArizona Supreme Court · 1987
- In Re VarbelArizona Supreme Court · 1995
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re PeasleyArizona Supreme Court · 2004
- In Re MoakArizona Supreme Court · 2003
- Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. FegenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000