There were two mitigating factors: absence of
a dishonest motive, and full and free disclosure
to a disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
Mr. Martinez violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1. 2, 1. 3, 1. 4(a) and (b), 1. 5(d)( 3), 1. 16(d),
and 8. 4(d).
JOHN M. RHUDE, JR.
Bar No. 022263; File Nos. 14-1646, 14-2609, 14-
PDJ No. 2015-9091
By final judgment and order dated Oct. 5, 2015,
the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an
agreement for discipline by consent by which
John M. Rhude, Scottsdale, was reprimanded.
Mr. Rhude also was placed on probation for two
years requiring participation in LOMAP and fee
arbitration with clients in four different matters.
He also was assessed the costs and expenses of the
In the first matter, Mr. Rhude, a managing
partner of the law firm of Corso and Rhude,
oversaw representations of a husband and wife in
a criminal case. The firm failed to obtain a written
conflict waiver from the husband. After the prosecutor raised a possible conflict of interest, and
the clients’ interests were no longer aligned, the
firm billed for a meeting with the client regarding
the conflict of interest.
In count two, Mr. Rhude’s firm failed to
appear for two hearings because the firm failed
to review the court docket upon accepting
the representation and failed to notify the court
that it deactivated two firm e-mail addresses pre-
viously provided to the court. After the second
failure to appear, the court set a contempt hear-
ing. Mr. Rhude’s law partner, Mr. Corso, filed a
motion blaming court staff for the firm’s failure
to appear, and ultimately was admonished by the
court and fined.
In count three, the firm was hired by a client’s
mother for a flat fee of $25,000 to provide criminal defense representation. The client’s mother
later asked the firm for an accounting to justify
the fee. The firm provided the client’s mother
with an accounting that failed to distinguish
between attorney and non-attorney work. The
invoices later were edited to reflect the distinction between attorney and non-attorney work.
The firm provided more than $25,000 worth of
In count four, the firm was hired by a client
in a criminal matter. The client was assigned to
several different attorneys during the representation. On the day of trial, a firm associate appeared
three minutes before trial. During trial, to the
client’s surprise, the associate informed the court
he would call no witnesses in the client’s defense.
The client was found guilty of disorderly conduct
based on the undisputed fact that the sheriff’s
office called the SWAT team to the scene caused
by the client.
There were two aggravating factors: A pattern
of misconduct and multiple offenses; and there
was one mitigating factor: Full and free disclosure
to the disciplinary board. Mr. Rhude violated
Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., specifically ERs 1. 1, 1. 3,
1. 4, 1. 5, 1. 7, 1. 15(a), 1. 16(d), 5. 1(a) and (b),
5. 3(a), and 8. 4(d).
coming up in
To advertise in Arizona Attorney
Magazine, contact Mikyeila Cordero,
(602) 340-7306 or email
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.
PEOPLE, PLACES, HONORS & AWARDS
Casino Del Sol Resort, Tucson, named Amanda
Sampson Lomayesva as general counsel. She
will oversee and identify legal issues within all
Casino Del Sol Resort departments. In addition,
she will maintain corporate governance and business policy for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe’s entertainment enterprises including Casino Del Sol Resort
and Casino of the Sun.
Prior to serving Casino Del Sol Resort, she
served two years as the Chief Judge for the Hopi
Tribe, as well as attorney general for the Pascua
Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, Phoenix,
announced that Jessica A. Benford was selected
Practice Group Leader of the firm’s Corporate,
Banking & Real Estate Practice Group. Benford,
a shareholder, will oversee the firm’s lawyers
practicing in the expansive areas of corporate,
banking and real estate.
Eileen J. Sahai joined the environmental and
regulatory law group at Jennings Haug & Cun-ningham, Phoenix. At the firm, she advises clients on issues related to environmental permits,
regulatory compliance, site cleanups and litigation.