ceedings, character and
Mr. Garrison violated
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ER 8. 4(c).
JOHN F. GILES, JR.
Bar No. 004362; File N. 10-2209
Supreme Court No. SB-10-0127-D
By Arizona Supreme Court order filed Jan. 4,
2011, John F. Giles, Jr., 11811 North Tatum
Blvd., Suite 3051, Phoenix, was placed on interim suspension, effective that date. The suspension will continue in effect until final disposition
of all pending proceedings against Mr. Giles,
unless earlier vacated or modified.
WILLIAM J. HOWARD
Bar No. 013026; File No. 10-0553
Supreme Court No. SB-10-0132-D
By judgment and order dated Jan. 5, 2011, the
Arizona Supreme Court accepted the consent
to disbarment of William J. Howard, 7355
Robin Hood Rd, Williams, Ariz., and ordered
him disbarred effective that same date. Mr.
Howard was ordered to pay the State Bar’s costs
and expenses in the amount of $1,222.50.
Bar No. 017333; File No. 07-1927
Supreme Court No. SB-10-0106-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Dec. 2, 2010, Cynthia A. Leyh, P.O. Box
266, Tolleson, Ariz., was suspended for six
months effective Jan. 1, 2011. She also was
placed on probation for two years to include
participating in the State Bar’s Member
Assistance Program; completing the professionalism course; and viewing the continuing legal
education video program titled “The Ten
Deadly Sins of Conflict.” Ms. Leyh also was
assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
Ms. Leyh had a personal relationship with
her client. Ms. Leyh facilitated her client’s violation of the terms of his probation by allowing
him to reside and/or visit her at her home while
he was prohibited by his probation officer from
doing so. In a motion for early termination of
the client’s probation, Ms. Leyh requested that
the court authorize her client to move to her
home without informing the court of their personal relationship or that the change of address
sought was to her own residence. In addition,
Ms. Leyh made representations in that motion
that her client had been drug-free for a period
of time when that was not true. Furthermore,
after Ms. Leyh’s client was arrested for subsequently violating his probation terms, she failed
to inform the court that her client incorrectly
listed her address as his residence on release
paperwork when she knew her client was prohibited by probation from residing with her.
Instead of raising the issue with the court or
waiting for the address issue to be clarified by
the court, Ms. Leyh took advantage of the situ-
ation and had her client reside with her. After
the prosecutor raised the issue, Ms. Leyh then
filed a motion for clarification that misrepresented information and omitted important
Ms. Leyh’s conduct was found to be prejudicial to the administration of justice because
her interaction with the court was on multiple
levels dishonest and misleading. Ms. Leyh’s
conduct caused actual harm to her client
because it aided and abetting him in violating
his terms of probation, which ultimately resulted in his being sent to prison.
Five aggravating factors were found: prior
discipline, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of
misconduct, refusal to admit the wrongful
nature of conduct, and substantial experience in
the practice of law.
Two mitigating factors were found: full and
free disclosure and character and reputation.
Ms. Leyh was found to have violated Rule
42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., and ERs 1. 7, 3. 3, 8. 4(c) and
Bar No. 013362; Case Nos. 05-1161, 05-1888, 06-
1137, 06-1138, 06-1212, 06-1582, 07-0085, 07-
0176, 07-0177, 07-0178, 07-0231, 07-0232, 07-
0239, 07-0275, 07-0278, 07-0289, 07-0412, 07-
0512, 07-0569, 07-0628, 07-0639, 07-0697, 07-
0887, 07-0889, 07-0890, 07-0891, 07-0892, 07-
0894, 07-0895, 07-1326, 07-1342, 07-1461, 07-
1561, 07-1601, 07-1885, 08-0397
Supreme Court No. SB-10-0036-D
By Arizona Supreme Court opinion dated Dec.
16, 2010, Jeffrey Phillips, 20 E. Thomas Road,
Suite 2600, Phoenix, was suspended for six
months, effective Feb. 18, 2011. Mr. Phillips
also was placed on probation for two years,
ordered to pay restitution and the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings applicable to him.
Mr. Phillips was the founder and managing
attorney of Phillips & Associates. He was
responsible for setting policy, billing, accounting and intake procedures. In factual findings
that were adopted by the Supreme Court, the
hearing officer found 12 ethical violations applicable to Mr. Phillips in regard to his supervision
and management of his law firm.
Regarding the caseloads of bankruptcy
attorneys, the hearing officer found that attorneys were being required to handle unmanageable caseloads, carrying as many as 500 cases at
a time. In multiple instances, clients’ needs were
not met because of the high volume of cases
assigned to bankruptcy attorneys. The number
of attorneys handling a given case also caused
inadequate attention to be paid to the problems
presented in those cases. The hearing officer
found that Mr. Phillips established and maintained a business model in which such ethical
violations were likely to occur.
In regard to intake and retention procedures, the hearing officer found that Phillips &
ARIZONA ATTORNEY MAGAZINE
and click on the Member-to-Member
Referral Guide button