Legal Opinion

Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C.

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 2006No. CV-05-0217-PRPublished

1Opinion of the Court

138 P.3d 723 (2006)

William D. FEARNOW and Elizabeth Fearnow, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

RIDENOUR, SWENSON, CLEERE & EVANS, P.C., Defendants-Appellants.

No. CV-05-0217-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc.

July 18, 2006.

Paul G. Ulrich P.C. by Paul G. Ulrich, Pamela B. Petersen, Phoenix, Attorneys for William D. and Elizabeth Fearnow.

Osborn Maledon P.A. by Mark I. Harrison, Thomas L. Hudson, Diane M. Meyers, Phoenix, Attorneys for Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C.

OPINION

HURWITZ, Justice.

¶ 1 Ethical Rule ("ER") 5.6(a) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits an "agreement that…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & MarcusSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  2. Howard v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Denburg v. Flattau & KlimplNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. Cohen v. LordNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Valley Medical Specialists v. FarberArizona Supreme Court · 1999

21 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