Legal Opinion
In Re Fee
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided July 6, 1995No. SB-93-0024-D, SB-93-0025-D. Disc. Comm. Nos. 91-0388, 91-0389PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZLAKET, Justice.
Because these bar disciplinary proceedings arise out of the same facts, they are consolidated for decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 53(e), Ariz.R.Sup.Ct.
Respondents’ client gave birth to a severely brain-damaged boy. In 1987, after unsuccessfully seeking representation from three other attorneys, she retained respondents on a 40% contingent fee. They filed a medical malpractice suit against the State of Arizona and Pima County on behalf of both mother and son. The child’s claim was dismissed, as was a pending conservatorship, after the trial court…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Matter of SwartzArizona Supreme Court · 1984
- Virzi v. Grand Trunk Warehouse & Cold Storage Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1983
- WALKER BY PIZANO v. MartArizona Supreme Court · 1990
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, KastensmithArizona Supreme Court · 1966
- Kath v. Western Media, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc. v. BatemanHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
- In Re HagerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- In Re AlcornArizona Supreme Court · 2002
- In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, BemisArizona Supreme Court · 1997
- In Re FeeArizona Supreme Court · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.