LAWYER REGULATION
She also must pay the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
RENE L. WILLIAMS
Bar No. 016825; File No. 07-6010
Supreme Court No. SB-08-0035-R
By Arizona Supreme Court judg-
ment and order dated April 22,
2008, Rene L. Williams, 1753 E.
Broadway Rd., Ste., 101-528,
Tempe, AZ was reinstated as a
member of the State Bar of Arizona.
SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS
ALLAN BARFIELD
Bar No. 013148; File No. 06-1929
Supreme Court No. SB-08-0064-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated June 4, 2008,
Allan Barfield, 7912 S. Ivy Lane,
Baxter Springs, KS, was suspended
for six months and one day and
assessed the costs and expenses of
the disciplinary proceedings.
In a prior matter, Mr. Barfield
had been censured and placed on
probation for one year. The terms of
probation included maintaining
malpractice insurance and completing the State Bar’s Ethics
Enhancement Program. Mr.
Barfield failed to comply with the
terms of his probation and moved
to Kansas without resolving the
noncompliance issues. He failed to
respond to the State Bar’s letters
regarding the matter.
Four aggravating factors were:
prior discipline, multiple offenses,
refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct and substantial experience in the practice of law.
There were no mitigating circumstances.
Mr. Barfield violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ER 8. 1(b), and Rule
53(d), (e) and (f), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
GARY BEREN
Bar No. 012631; File No. 06-1200
Supreme Court No. SB-08-0065-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated May 15,
2008, Gary Beren, 3800 N. Central
Ave., Ste. 1500, Phoenix, AZ, was
censured and assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
A complaint was filed against
Mr. Beren regarding his conduct
while representing a client in two
criminal matters. After investigation, the State Bar concluded that
he had not violated any responsibilities in his representation of the
client and the allegations were dismissed. Mr. Beren’s discipline
results from his failure to respond
to the State Bar’s inquiries.
Two aggravating factors were
found: prior discipline and substantial experience in practice.
Four mitigating factors were
found: absence of dishonest or selfish motive, personal or emotional
problems, efforts to rectify the consequences of misconduct and
remorse.
Mr. Beren violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ER 8. 1(b), and Rule
53(d) and (f), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
SCOTT ASHTON BLAIR
Bar No. 010142; File No. 06-1317
Supreme Court No. SB-08-0084-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated June 26,
2008, Scott Ashton Blair, P.O. Box
8400, Scottsdale, AZ, was censured
and assessed the costs and expenses
of the disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. Blair was retained to assist
in the structuring of a new company. At the request of the client, Mr.
Blair presented a nondisclosure
agreement to a third party listing
himself as the owner of the new
company, which was false.
Respondent made a false statement
of material fact or law to a third
person, and/or engaged in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation.
Two aggravating factors were
found: prior discipline and substantial experience in the practice of
law.
One mitigating factor was
found: cooperative attitude toward
the proceedings.
Mr. Blair violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 4. 1 and 8. 4(c).
MICHAEL A. CARRAGHER
Bar No. 003366; File No. 06-1690
Supreme Court No. SB-08-0073-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated May 19,
2008, Michael A. Carragher, P.O.
Box 169, Globe, AZ, was censured,
placed on probation for two years
and assessed the costs and expenses
of the disciplinary proceedings. The
terms of probation include participating in the State Bar’s Law Office
Management Assistance Program.
Mr. Carragher was retained by a
client to prepare a qualified domes-
tic relations order. He prepared and
submitted a draft of the document
to the plan administrator on June
14, 2004, and was informed it contained some deficiencies. Upon
resubmitting the documents on
July 26, 2005, with the proposed
changes, Mr. Carragher was again
informed that additional changes
and modifications had to be made.
The document had to be resubmitted two more times, on Jan. 31,
2007, and July 2, 2007, to cure
deficiencies before it was finally
accepted.
Two aggravating factors were
found: prior discipline and substantial experience in the practice of
law.
Three mitigating factors were
found: absence of dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure,
and remoteness of prior offenses.
Mr. Carragher violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1. 2 and 1. 3.
ROBERT M. COOK
Bar No. 002628; File Nos. 06-0426, 06-
0472
Supreme Court No. SB-08-0074-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated May 23,
2008, Robert M. Cook, 1440 E.
Missouri Ave, Phoenix, AZ, was
censured, placed on probation for
one year and assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. The terms of probation
include participating in the State
Bar’s Law Office Management
Assistance Program and Member
Assistance Program.
Mr. Cook was retained to pursue a forcible detainer action. In
drafting the client’s answer to the
complaint, numerous responses
were different from what was stated
by the clients, including admissions
to several allegations that the clients
wanted to deny. Mr. Cook filed the
answer without closely reviewing it.
The opposing party filed and was
granted a motion for summary
judgment based in part on the submitted answer. Additionally, after
the representation terminated, Mr.
Cook revealed confidential information by sending a letter to the
Yuma County attorney accusing the
clients of committing perjury in the
Superior Court.
Four aggravating factors were
found: prior discipline, pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses and
substantial experience in the prac-
tice of law.
Five mitigating factors were
found: personal or emotional problems, timely good-faith effort to
make restitution, full and free disclosure, good character or reputation, remorse.
Mr. Cook violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1. 1, 1. 6(a) and
5. 3(a) and Rule 41(g),
ARIZ.R.S.CT.
RONALD G. FINCH
Bar No. 004286; File Nos. 06-1828, 06-
0241, 07-1015
Supreme Court No. SB-08-0066-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated May 15,
2008, Ronald G. Finch, 3001 W.
Indian School Rd., Ste. 301,
Phoenix, AZ, was censured and
placed on probation for 18 months.
The terms of probation include
participating in the State Bar’s Law
Office Management Assistance
Program. Mr. Finch shall also initiate fee arbitration with his clients
and be assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
In count one, Mr. Finch was
retained to represent a client in an
immigration matter in July 2004.
The client was requesting asylum,
withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against
Torture in the United States
Immigration Court. At a hearing
on the merits, the client’s claims for
relief were denied and she was
ordered to be removed from the
United States. Mr. Finch filed an
appeal with the Board of
Immigration Appeals but the decision was affirmed. The deadline to
file a petition for review was April
10, 2006. Due to a miscommunication with his staff, the petition was
sent by regular mail and received
after the deadline. Thereafter, Mr.
Finch did not file a motion to
extend time for filing. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Finch admitted that it was his
ultimate responsibility to meet the
April 10, 2006, deadline.
In count three, Mr. Finch was
retained to represent a client in her
attempt to reverse an order of
removal from the United States in
March 2006. Mr. Finch filed a
motion to reopen the case and a
hearing on the merits was scheduled for May 15, 2007. Due to a
