In re Member of State Bar
226 Ariz. 112
| Ariz. | 2010Background
- Phillips founded and manages Phillips & Associates, a large consumer-law firm with thousands of clients and a high-volume practice in Phoenix.
- The 2002 disciplinary order imposed probation and detailed reforms for P&A, including intake, accounting, and ethics-training requirements; Phillips completed probation in 2004.
- From 2006 to 2008, the Bar issued probable-cause orders against Phillips and Arentz; a formal complaint was filed in 2007, alleging multiple ER violations across 22 counts.
- A 2008 hearing found Phillips violated ERs 5.1(a), 5.3(a), and 7.1; Arentz violated ERs 5.1(a)(b), 5.3(a)(b), and 1.5(a); the Hearing Officer recommended six months and one day for Phillips and sixty days for Arentz, with two years of probation for both upon reinstatement.
- The Arizona Disciplinary Commission adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings; Phillips and Arentz petitioned for review on two issues: whether the Hearing Officer used a vicarious-liability standard and whether the sanction for Phillips was appropriate.
- This Court reduced Phillips’s suspension to six months, finding no error in the supervisory-liability analysis but determining the six-months-and-one-day term was disproportionate relative to Arentz’s two-month sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hearing Officer applied an improper vicarious-liability standard | Phillips | Phillips | No error; independent supervisory liability required |
| Whether the six months and one day suspension is appropriate | Phillips | Phillips | Reduced to six months; proportionate after internal consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lenaburg, 177 Ariz. 20 (1993) (discipline for supervisory failures; censure with probation)
- In re Rice, 173 Ariz. 376 (1992) (negligent supervision in a large firm; probation-imposed sanction)
- In re Van Dox, 214 Ariz. 300 (2007) (ABA standards used to guide sanctions; de novo proportionality considerations)
- In re White-Steiner, 219 Ariz. 323 (2009) (sanctions guided by ABA Standard 7.0 and 7.2; intent and injury assessed)