In re a Member of the State Bar
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BALES, Justice.
¶ 1 In reviewing attorney discipline cases, the Disciplinary Commission must accept a hearing officer’s factual findings if they have any reasonable basis. Because the Commission here did not defer to the Hearing Officer’s finding that the attorney acted negligently, we decline to impose the Com*324mission’s recommended sanction of suspension, and instead order censure and two years probation on the terms recommended by the Hearing Officer.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Respondent Janet White-Steiner was admitted to practice law in Arizona in 1992. She and her husband,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re PeasleyArizona Supreme Court · 2004
- In Re SchollArizona Supreme Court · 2001
- In Re Non-Member of State Bar, Van DoxArizona Supreme Court · 2007
- In Re WalkerArizona Supreme Court · 2001
- In Re ToccoArizona Supreme Court · 1999
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re AbramsArizona Supreme Court · 2011
- In re Member of State BarArizona Supreme Court · 2010
- In Re PhillipsArizona Supreme Court · 2010
- In Re White-SteinerArizona Supreme Court · 2009
- In re Hodge - (Supreme Court of Kansas · 2017
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.