ber of shareholders.
Ronald Hatcher joined the
firm’s Corporate, Banking and Real
Estate Practice and has represented
national, regional and local clients
in all aspects of real estate transactions, development and financing for
nearly 20 years.
Thomas R. Nolasco joined the
firm’s Litigation Practice and assists
clients in a variety of disputes including professional liability, products liability, real estate, intellectual
property, restrictive covenants, lender liability, franchise, international
and bankruptcy. He also serves as
Chair of the International Law Section of the State Bar of Arizona, as
Vice President of the Arizona Association of Gifted and Talented, on
the Board of Directors for Friends
of Phoenix Public Library, and is a
member of the Arizona Business and
NewLAWu.s. announced that Barb
Luther joined the firm to practice
in the areas of intellectual property,
patent and copyright law. Her intel-
lectual property work encompasses
the pharmaceutical industry, nutra-
ceuticals, life sciences, tech, and
public agency that demonstrates
achievement and sustained commit-
ment to diversity and inclusion in the
legal profession for racially and eth-
nically diverse lawyers in Arizona.
Gov. Doug Ducey announced the
appointment of attorney Barry
Wong as executive director of
the Governor’s Office of Equal
Among other experience, Wong
served as a legislator for the Arizona
House of Representatives from 1993
until 2000. In 2006, he was appointed to serve as a commissioner
on the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Arizona Supreme Court Vice Chief
Justice John Pelander was one of
73 newly elected members of the
American Law Institute, which
describes itself as “the leading independent organization in the United
States producing scholarly work
to clarify, modernize, and otherwise
improve the law.” New members
were selected by their peers for nomination and, ultimately, election to
the Institute. Members represent the
bar, legal scholars, and the judiciary.
Other new members welcomed
from Arizona are:
David G. Campbell, Phoenix,
United States District Court Judge;
Amelia Craig Cramer, Tucson,
Pima County Attorney’s Office
Chief Deputy Attorney; and Nicole
France Stanton, Phoenix, Quarles
& Brady LLP Partner.
new opinion. The opinion points
out the specific provisions of
Comment [ 9] to ER 1. 16,
allowing a lawyer to charge a
client for subsequent copies of
documents that a client has previously received free of charge. 6
If a client can’t be charged at
the end of a representation for a
file document she has not previously received during the representation, wouldn’t this mean a
fortiori that she shouldn’t be
charged for copies of file documents initially sent to her pursu-
Dwight E. Eller, Tucson
Rodger A. Golston, Tempe
D. W. Grainger, Scottsdale
Clifford J. Hofmann, Tucson
Gene Karp, Tucson
Katherine Markoulis, Tucson
Thomas A. McCarthy,
John Larry McLaws, Gilbert, Ariz.
Deanna Recker, Maricopa, Ariz.
Paul B. Rudolph, Scottsdale
Deann L. Sandry, Yuma
Russell G. Sheley, Jr., Phoenix
Ernest Michael Skinner, Tucson
Mark R. Sligh, Asheville, NC
Douglas F. Snover III, Tempe
George R. Sorenson, Phoenix
Roy B. Ward, Flagstaff
Jonathon M. Yarger, Cleveland, OH
ant to ER 1. 4 during the repre-
sentation? We have no direct
authority on that specific ques-
tion: Read literally, ER 1. 16(d)
and Comment [ 9] apply only
after the termination of a repre-
sentation and not before. The
safest approach may be to make
provision in your engagement
letter for copying costs of file
documents already provided to
the client during the representa-
tion. With documents and infor-
mation now more frequently
being transmitted to clients elec-
The Maricopa County Bar Associ-
ation inducted three Arizona judges
into its Hall of Fame at an October
27 luncheon: Hon. John Gemmill
from the Arizona Court of Appeals,
Division 1; Hon. Ron Reinstein,
a retired Superior Court judge from
Maricopa County who works as
a consultant to the Administrative
Office of the Courts; and Hon.
Elizabeth Finn, Presiding Judge of
the Glendale City Court.
tronically via attachments to emails, compact discs and thumb
drives, copying charges will hopefully become less of an ethical issue in the future.
PEOPLE ITEM SUBMISSIONS
Send items for the People column to
Nicole Stanton, managing partner
of Quarles & Brady’s Phoenix
office, was honored with the Gay,
Lesbian and Straight Education
Network (GLSEN) Phoenix Ally
Award, given annually to local leaders who advocate for safe and respectful schools and create positive
change for all students, including
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender
and questioning (LGBTQ) youth.
In addition to her position as
office manager partner at Quarles &
Brady, Stanton is a member of the
firm’s Commercial Litigation Group.
The Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office received the 2015
Excellence in Diversity Agency
Award from the Arizona Black Bar
Association at its annual Hayzel
B. Daniels Scholarship Award Dinner. The award is presented to an
Arizona law firm, corporation,
academic institution, non-profit, or
EYE ON ETHICS —continued from p. 10
1. ABA Formal Op. 471, Ethical
Obligations of Lawyer to
Surrender Papers and Property
to Which Former Client is
Entitled (July 1, 2015).
2. Arizona Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.
3. Returning a Client’s Files: Who
Pays the Copying Costs? ARIZ.
ATT’Y (Sept. 2003) at 10.
4. National Sales and Service Co.
v. Superior Court, 667 P.2d
738 (Ariz. 1983).
5. Ariz. Ethics Op. 15-02, Client
Files; Safekeeping of Property;
Maintaining Client Files;
Termination of Representation
6. Still in full force and effect is
untitled Ariz. Ethics Op. 93-03
(March 17, 1993) (an attorney
is not obligated under either ER
1. 15(b) or ER 1. 16(d) to provide extra copies of a client’s
file free of charge).