In Re Phillips, 244 P.3d 549

Phillips is founder and managing attorney of Phillips & Associates, a large Phoenix firm handling criminal defense, bankruptcy, and personal injury.
During the relevant period Phillips delegated primary responsibility for the criminal division to Arentz and the bankruptcy division to Teague, while retaining control over firm-wide policies.
A 2002 disciplinary action resulted in censure and two years’ probation with detailed probation terms addressing intake, accounting, billing, and ethics training.
Between 2006 and 2008 the Bar issued probable cause orders; formal complaint filed in 2007; ultimately 22 counts alleging multiple ER violations (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 5.1, 5.3, 7.1, 8.4).
A 11-day hearing in 2008 found Phillips violated ERs 5.1(a) and 5.3(a) (and 7.1) and recommended a six-month-and-one-day suspension for Phillips and sixty days for Arentz, with two years’ probation for both upon reinstatement.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review on vicarious-liability and sanction issues, accepted liability findings, but reduced Phillips’s suspension to six months to address proportionality with Arentz.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Hearing Officer applied improper vicarious liability	Phillips contends supervisory liability used the authority over subordinates to impose liability.	Phillips argues ER 5.1/5.3 impose independent supervisory duties; no vicarious liability.	No error: independent supervisory liability applied correctly; Phillips liable for 5.1/5.3.
Whether the six months and one day sanction is appropriate	Phillips argues the punishment is disproportionate.	Bar/Commission argues substantial misconduct warrants longer sanction.	Sanction reduced to six months to address proportionality with Arentz.

In re Lenaburg, 177 Ariz. 20 (1993) (negligent ER 5.1 violation; public censure with probation)
In re Rice, 173 Ariz. 376 (1992) (negligent supervision; probation and censure)
In re Dean, 212 Ariz. 221 (2006) (internal proportionality in sanction determination)
In re Van Dox, 214 Ariz. 300 (2007) (ABA standards guiding sanctions)
In re White-Steiner, 219 Ariz. 323 (2009) (de novo review of sanctions with ABA Standards)