FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].



Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas
 

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules

                

 

Welcome!

 

This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE READ: 

Contact Information

Please include all of your contact information when submitting a rule petition or comment.  Otherwise, your submission may be rejected and we will be unable to advise you as to why. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 09 May 2009 03:10 PM by  jmillet
R-08-0014 Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule 42
 1 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
StateBarAZ
Posts:

--
06 May 2008 09:41 AM
    R-08-0014

    PETITION TO AMEND RULE 42, RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT

    TO ALLOW A LAWYER TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT TO PREVENT REASONABLY CERTAIN DEATH OR SUBSTANTIAL BODILY HARM.

    Petitioner:
    Robert B. Van Wyck
    Chief Bar Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 200
    Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
    Phone: 602 340-7241
    Fax: 602 271-4930

    Filed May 7, 2008

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2010.
    Attachments
    jmillet
    Posts:

    --
    09 May 2009 03:10 PM
    Jonathan A. Millet, Esq.
    125 North Granite Street
    Prescott, Arizona 86301-3001
    (928) 445-0122

    I support this rule change but would strike the following example from the proposed comment as unnecessary:

    Thus, a lawyer who knows that a client has accidentally discharged toxic waste into a town's water supply may reveal this information to the authorities if there is a present and substantial risk that a person who drinks the water will contract a life-threatening or debilitating disease and the lawyer's disclosure is necessary to eliminate the threat or reduce the number of victims.

    This example is based on speculation and diminishes the "reasonably certain" requirement. Furthermore, environmental law is a poor example to for a generally applicable rule. The proposed comment is not diminished by striking the example.

    Jonathan A. Millet, Esq.
    Topic is locked

    Forums Rule Change Petitions under Consideration Rules of the Supreme Court