Appellate Attorney: David
W. Hubert, Esq. Professional,
convincing communication. Reputation for high integrity. Over
28 years of experience as highly
accomplished, meticulously organized attorney. Track record of
Pelvic Mesh Medical Consulting,
PLLC: Matthew E. Karlovsky, M.D.
Board certified, fellowship trained
urologist specializing in female pelvic
surgery. Case reviewer, Arizona Medical Board, urology/urogynecology
related to pelvic floor and vaginal
Experienced Research Attorney.
Skillfully researches legal issues,
prepares pleadings, motions, briefs.
$75/hour. Chris Hill 480-785-
More Experts at www.azbar.org/
mesh. Case review/expert testimo-ny/exams. defense or plaintiff.
Strawberry’s failure to timely pay
the property taxes. The Court of
Appeals reversed holding that the
Tax Court’s reliance upon the
general statute, denying a property owner the right to sue if
taxes were not timely paid, must
yield to the specific statute within
the tax abatement scheme allowing a property owner to sue if
taxes have been paid (Strawberry
ultimately paid the property taxes
to redeem the tax lien) even if
paid untimely. The tax abatement
statute allowed the property owner
“who pays the tax” to bring suit
and the Court noted there was
no “timely” requirement in that
specific statute. Strawberry Ridge
Estates, LLC v. Gila County, 1 CA-TX 14-0004 (5/26/15).
indicates a dissent
COURT OF APPEALS TAX LAW MATTERS
Delinquent payment of property tax does not deprive
property owner from obtaining
abatement due to County
error. Strawberry Ridge Estates
owned multiple parcels of real property located in a residential subdivision in Gila County. Strawberry
failed to pay the property taxes for
several years. The County Treasurer
sold the tax liens on the property to
an investor. Later, Strawberry and
the investor applied to the Treasurer
for an abatement of the tax liability
alleging that the County had
improperly imposed the tax based
on the incorrect premise that the
County had granted final approval
of the property for subdivision.
The Treasurer denied the claim.
Strawberry’s lawsuit was dismissed
by the Tax Court based upon
fied to practice under Rule 38(d),
ARIZ.R.S.CT., a trial court does
not err by summarily denying a
petition for post-conviction relief
based on the defendant’s claimed
denial of his Sixth Amendment
right to counsel because there is no
complete deprivation of counsel at a
critical portion of trial as required to
establish such structural error due to
ongoing presence of the supervising
attorney. State v. Terrazas, 2 CA-CR
Under the Victims Bill of
Rights (“VBR”) a material
witness is not related by consanguinity or affinity to the second
degree to their biological parent’s
stepchild who was murdered,
whereby such a witness is not considered a “victim” under the VBR,
and may not refuse to be interviewed by defense counsel in
preparation for trial. Allen v. Hon.
Teresa Sanders and State of Arizona
(RPI), 1 CA-SA 14-0256, 4/2/15.
COURT OF APPEALS FAMILY LAW MATTERS
When determining gross
income for child support
purposes, the court distinguished
between a one-time drawdown of
an investment against a voluntary
and repeated drawdown in order
to meet living expenses. Where the
funds are being used for the purpose
of meeting that party’s living
expenses, the court included them
as income for child support purposes under the reasoning that those
funds would be available to the
child if the child lived in that home.
Milinovich v. Womack, 1 CA-CV 12-
a former employee of an opposing
organizational party represented by
counsel without violating ER 4. 2
unless the acts or omissions of the
former employee gave rise to the
underlying litigation (another way
of saying they could be imputed
to the organization) or the former
employee has an ongoing relation-
ship with the former employer in
connection with the litigation. The
court thus was able to reconcile the
proscriptions set forth in Comment
[ 2] to ER 4. 2 with the unique
situations involving witnesses who
are no longer “constituents” in the
Lang is still good law in
Arizona and has been viewed to
apply even when the former
employee becomes a constituent of
the client whose lawyer seeks the
contact. 8 If the former employee is
entitled to the protections of the
no-contact rule but is now represented by his or her own counsel,
consent by that counsel will suffice
to allow the current employer’s
lawyer to interview the person
without having the consent of the
former employer’s counsel or without having him present. 9
1. Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.
2. Comment [ 3] to ER 4. 2 states
that the rule covers any person,
whether or not a “party.”
3. George M. Cohen, Obligations
to Third Persons; Ex Parte
Contacts, 30 LAW. MAN. PROF.
CONDUCT 807 (Dec. 31, 2014).
4. Lang v. Superior Court, 826
P.2d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App.
5. Jessica J. Berch & Michael A.
Berch, May I Have a Word With
You: Oops, Have I Already
Violated the No-Contact Rule?
6 PHOENIX L. REV. 433
6. See cases collected at 30 LAW.
MAN. PROF. CONDUCT 807
(Dec. 31, 2014) at section
7. ABA Formal Op. 91-359
(March 22, 1991) and Ariz.
Ethics Op. 89-05 (May 17,
1989), Alternative Opinion A.
8. Ariz. Ethics Op. 00-05 (Sept.
EYE ON ETHICS —continued from p. 10