costs and expenses totaling $1,236.50.
In File No. 14-0601, Mr. Farrington’s
clients’ Chapter 13 bankruptcy case was dismissed in October 2013 when they defaulted on
the plan payments. They told Mr. Farrington
that they were unable to continue with the case
but Mr. Farrington did not communicate to
them that the representation was over. Thereafter the clients tried to reach Mr. Farrington
but his phone number was out of service, he no
longer worked out of his Tucson office, and
there was a “For Rent” sign at his Yuma office.
The State Bar similarly was unable to reach Mr.
Farrington by phone or mail, but did forward
to him by email the clients’ bar charge, and
he responded. He stopped practicing law to
become a high school math teacher and
acknowledged: “I could have done a better job
of clearly communicating the termination of the
representation to” the clients.
In File No. 14-2656, Mr. Farrington did not
respond to the State Bar’s screening investiga-
tion. He represented a client in a bankruptcy
case but starting in the summer of 2013 she
was unable to reach him. When she brought this
charge the client had an impending hearing in
September 2014 in which the trustee threat-
ened to close her case because Mr. Farrington
had not completed the requisite tasks. Mr. Far-
rington admitted to the State Bar that in Octo-
ber 2014 he received the charges in this case
and in File No. 14-2835, but did not explain
why he did not respond. He promised to
respond to the charges “by the end of next
week” (March 13, 2015) but did not do so.
In File No. 14-2835, Mr. Farrington represented a married couple in their inverse condemnation suit and two Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. Communication with him was
sporadic and difficult, and he was late filing
monthly bankruptcy case reports. Mr. Farrington left his firm and changed his phone number. In May 2014, the clients asked him to
dismiss the Chapter 11 cases since he was not
working on them but they did not hear from
him in response. As in File No. 14-2656, Mr.
Farrington did not respond to the State Bar’s
The presiding disciplinary judge found
three mitigating factors: absence of a prior dis-
ciplinary record, absence of a dishonest motive,
Mr. Farrington violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1. 3, 1. 4, 1. 16(d), 3. 2, 8. 1,
and 8. 4(d); and Rule 54(d), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
SABINUS A. MEGWA
Bar No. 011266; File No. 13-1432
PDJ No. 2014-9106
By final judgment and order dated April 28,
2015, Sabinus A. Megwa, Mesa, was reprimanded. He also was assessed costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding in the amount
Mr. Megwa was retained to represent a
client in a personal injury case. After he filed the
complaint, Mr. Megwa failed to file an application for default judgment and the case was ultimately dismissed. He did not make reasonable
efforts to expedite the litigation and failed to
keep the client reasonably informed about the
status of the case.
Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary action
and substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors: absence of a dishonest or
selfish motive, timely good faith effort to make
restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary
board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings and remorse.
Mr. Megwa violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
specifically ERs 1. 3, 1. 4(a)( 3), 3. 2 and 8. 4(d).
JILL L. ROGERS
Bar No. 022988; File Nos. 11-1696/11-1696-N
PDJ No. 2015-9040
By final judgment and order dated June 29,
2015, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted
an agreement for discipline by consent by which
Jill L. Rogers, Phoenix, was suspended for six
months and one day, effective August 1, 2015.
Ms. Rogers also was ordered to complete two
years of probation upon reinstatement on terms
to be determined at her reinstatement hearing.
She also was ordered to pay costs and expenses
In File No. 11-1696, following a DUI conviction Ms. Rogers was ordered to participate in
the Member Assistance Program as a term of
her probation. Ms. Rogers violated her probation by failing to attend required appointments,
and drinking alcohol and using illegal drugs
while on probation.
The presiding disciplinary judge found three
mitigating factors: absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems,
and full and free disclosure to the disciplinary
board. There were no aggravating factors. Ms.
Rogers violated Rule 54(e), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
Nearly 17,000 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.