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 SACrtDocs@courts.az.gov.

News:  We have corrected an error that prevented users from accessing some current criminal rules via Westlaw.
Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Proposed Local Rules
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. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 11 Dec 2016 10:23 PM by  Martin Lynch
R-16-0045 Rule 42, ER 6.4, Rules of the Supreme Court
 0 Replies
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Martin Lynch
New Member
Posts:22 New Member

11 Dec 2016 10:23 PM
    Would amend ER 6.4 to require lawyers who represent themselves to be subject to the same ethical standards regarding conflicts of interest as their clients.

    December 11, 2016
    Petition for Rule 28(G) Expedited Amendment of Supreme Court Rule 42.

    In Rule Change Forum R-16-0037 for ARFLP Rule 72 Special Masters, Attorneys Annette Burns and Barry Brody led a group of some 100 attorneys filing in opposition to prohibiting Sua Sponte “forced” appointments of Special Masters over the objections of unwilling litigants. Petitioner is aware that these forced appointments would serve to enrich those who were petitioning this honorable Supreme Court. Seeing no disclosure of this obvious conflict of interest in their petition to the Court, Plaintiff filed a Bar Compliant 16-3179 citing ER 6.4 since in this instance the attorneys were representing themselves and thus the rule would reasonably apply.
    Surprisingly, the State Bar has concluded that only clients must conform to reasonable standards of Ethical Conduct regarding disclosure of conflict of interest, but lawyers are not held to the same ethical standards as everybody else per the strict interpretation of ER 6.4 (Rule 42) as crafted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court per Article 6 Section 3 of the Arizona State Constitution.
    Petitioner asserts that such a discrepancy must merely be an oversight and the following proposed language to correct this discrepancy is simple, reasonable and obvious. Thus this petition to immediately correct this simple problem using the powers vested in the Chief Justice by Art 6 Sect 3 by crafting and signing an administrative order such as the following proposed language.

    (Why was the State Bar unable to recognize this problem and propose this change?)

    ER 6.4. Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests

    A lawyer may serve as a director, officer or member of an organization involved in reform of the law or its administration notwithstanding that the reform may affect the interests of a client of the lawyer. When the lawyer knows that the interests of a client may be materially benefited by a decision in which the lawyer participates, the lawyer shall disclose that fact but need not identify the client. LAWYERS SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT REGARDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND DISCLOSURE THEREOF, AS THEIR CLIENTS.

    Martin Lynch
    1120 W Broadway Rd #55
    Tempe AZ 85282

    Filed: December 11, 2016

    Comments due May 22, 2017.

    ORDERED: Petition for Rule 28(G) Expedited Amendment of Supreme Court Rule 42, ER 6.4 =DENIED.
    Topic is locked