ARIZONA ATTORNEY MAGAZINE
and click on the
Expert Witness Guide button
site— EVBar.org. They have approximately 150 members; 28-40 attend
3 Section/Committee Reports—
Robert B. Carey, Chair of the Class
Action and Derivative Suits
Committee, reported that this is a
small working group and is in its second year of operation.
3 AZFLS&E Liaison—Public Board
Member Meredith Peabody reported
that the Foundation Board and staff
just completed a review of their pro-
grams and services in relation to their
strategic plan. The Foundation’s
next fundraiser is February 16.
JEFFREY R. FINLEY
Bar No. 009683; File No. 09-0157
Supreme Court No. SB-10-0116-D
By Arizona Supreme Court order dated Jan. 5,
2011, Jeffrey R. Finley, 4425 N. 24th Street,
Phoenix, was reinstated as a member of the
State Bar effective the date of the order.
Bar No. 003332; File No. 09-0841
Supreme Court No. SB-10-0129-D (2011)
By Arizona Supreme Court order filed Jan. 4,
2011, Marshall Fealk, 7471 E Tanque Verde
Road, Tucson, was suspended for 30 days effective Feb. 3, 2011. In addition, Mr. Fealk will be
placed on probation for one year upon reinstatement and was assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceeding. During
probation Mr. Fealk will participate in the State
Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance
Program, complete specific continuing legal
education courses and use the services of a qualified bookkeeper/accountant.
Mr. Fealk failed to safeguard client property
by failing to keep appropriate records related to
his trust account. Mr. Fealk failed to keep necessary records, including appropriately maintained client ledgers and records of deposits and
account transactions, and he failed to conduct
required monthly three-way reconciliations.
The State Bar and Mr. Fealk entered into an
agreement for discipline by consent based on
Mr. Fealk’s admission that he violated ER 1. 15,
Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., and Rule 43,
Three aggravating factors were found: prior
disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct and
substantial experience in the practice of law.
Two mitigating factors were found: absence
of selfish or dishonest motive and full and free
disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative
attitude toward the proceedings.
DANIEL E GARRISON
Bar No. 021495; File No. 09-0694
Supreme Court No. SB-10-0122-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Nov. 18, 2010, Daniel E Garrison, 7114
E. Stetson Dr., Suite 300, Scottsdale, was censured. He also was assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
After leaving his law practice, Mr. Garrison
became the CEO of a corporation in July 2003.
To keep the company afloat, in August 2003 an
investor made a loan to the company, entitling
him to some potential ownership. That investor
subsequently introduced the company to a new
majority investor. The company’s accountant suggested that both individuals could use operating
losses of the company on their individual tax
returns to create refunds to capitalize the company, even though neither acquired their interests
until late in the year. Both investors demanded
that Mr. Garrison facilitate this, and the first
investor threatened to foreclose on his loan,
which would have ended the company. Mr.
Garrison agreed to and did sign a document
reflecting that the individuals had gained their
interests in January 2003. The company’s
accounting firm later refused to use the document
or assign the losses to the individuals, and the
document was never actually used to secure a tax
benefit or presented to any governmental agency.
There was one aggravating factor: substantial experience in the practice of law. There were
five mitigating circumstances: absence of a disciplinary record, absence of a selfish motive,
cooperative attitude towards disciplinary pro-
CAUTION! Nearly 16,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in Arizona.
Many attorneys share the same names. All discipline reports should be read
carefully for names, addresses and Bar numbers.