Purpose: The committee members oversee the Uniform Bar Examination,
MBE, MPRE, and grading and administration of all test components, and
proctor the February and July exams. Additionally, Examiners are responsible for the performance of the graders ( 12,000 essay answers per year)
and for the formula and weighting of the components of the required Bar
Openings: One appointment will be made by the Arizona Supreme Court.
The State Bar Board of Governors is asked to submit three nominations per
opening to the Court for its ultimate selection.
Candidate Criteria/Qualifications: Applicants should familiarize themselves with Supreme Court Rules 33 and 35, which establish the duties
of the committee. Committee members must possess the time, skill and
patience to fulfill the responsibilities of committee members, including
review, organization and grading of confidential bar examination materials.
Arizona Supreme Court Committee on
Application Deadline: Wednesday, September 7, 2016
It is important to apply the Supreme Court Rules pertaining to this process
consistently and fairly. Communication with Court staff and other committee members is encouraged and expected. Applicants should describe prior
experience with regulation or testing of professionals, and their views on
professional ethical obligations, on their application. Applicants for membership on the Committee who currently serve or have served within the
past two years as law school faculty (including adjunct) at one of Arizona’s
accredited law schools or as tutors or faculty for bar review courses will
not be considered if such service could give rise to significant conflicts of
interest regarding their duty to the Supreme Court to review or grade the
examinations of their current or former students.
Committee members are expected to attend and participate both days
of each bar examination, held the last consecutive Tuesday and Wednesday
of February and July. Members also must participate in grading calibration
sessions and attend committee meetings held throughout the year. Mileage
is paid for any member residing outside Maricopa County, but there is no
other compensation for service as a committee member.
Term: Initial term of four years, with the possibility of reappointment.
TIMOTHY W. STEADMAN
Bar No. 022708
PDJ No. 2016-9027-R
By order dated April 15, 2016,
the presiding disciplinary judge
reinstated Timothy W. Steadman,
Mesa, Ariz., to the active practice
of law pursuant to Rule 64(e)( 2),
The presiding disciplinary judge
also placed Mr. Steadman on two
years of probation requiring Mr.
Steadman to notify the State Bar if
he resumes the practice of law and,
if he does so, to participate in the
State Bar’s Law Office Management
Assistance Program (LOMAP).
JAMES ROGER WOOD
Bar No. 018948
PDJ No. 2016-9016-R
By order of the presiding disciplinary judge dated February 17,
2016, James Roger Wood, Tempe,
Ariz., was reinstated to the active
practice of law in Arizona effective
that date. Mr. Wood was placed on
probation for one year and ordered
to participate in the State Bar’s
Law Office Management Assistance
LINCOLN M. WRIGHT
Bar No. 020076; File No. 14-0060-R
PDJ No. 2016-9004-R
By order of the presiding disciplinary judge dated March 15,
2016, Lincoln M. Wright, Mesa,
Ariz., was reinstated as an active
member of the State Bar of Arizona
effective the date of the order.
JASON C. ADAMS
Bar No. 018209; File Nos. 15-1140, 15-
PDJ No. 2016-9025
By final judgment and order dated
March 22, 2016, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an Agreement for Discipline by Consent by
which Jason C. Adams, Scottsdale,
was suspended for six months and
one day. Upon reinstatement, Mr.
Adams shall be placed on probation
for a period to be determined by
In Count One, Mr. Adams
was hired to represent a client in
a criminal matter. When the client
appealed and his appellate attorney
requested the file, Mr. Adams failed
to send client’s file to that attorney.
During the State Bar’s investigation, Bar Counsel requested a copy
of the client file, but Mr. Adams
failed to provide one.
In Count Two, Mr. Adams
represented a client in a civil mat-
ter and filed a complaint, paying
$319 in filing fees drawn on his
law firm account. Thereafter, Mr.
Adams requested a stop payment of
the check. The Clerk of the Court
repeatedly tried to contact Mr.
Adams regarding the unpaid filing
fee. Mr. Adams did not respond.
Mr. Adams also failed to provide a
timely response to the State Bar’s
request for information.
In Count Three, Mr. Adams
was hired in May 2013 to represent
a client in a personal injury matter.
Mr. Adams failed to adequately
communicate with the client, causing the client to hire another attorney who filed the complaint in May
2015. One week later Mr. Adams,
without informing his client, also
sued on her behalf. Mr. Adams
failed to respond to requests for
information from the State Bar.
Aggravating factors: prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process.
Mitigating factors: absence of
a dishonest or selfish motive, personal or emotional problems, and
Mr. Adams violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1. 3, 1. 4, 1. 16,
8. 1(b), and 8. 4(d), and Rule 54(d),
WILLIAM L. ASDELL
Bar No. 017113; File No. 15-1543
PDJ No. 2015-9122
On Feb. 16, 2016, the presiding
disciplinary judge issued a Final
Judgment and Order accepting
the Agreement for Discipline by
Consent by which William L.
Asdell, Tucson, was suspended for
one year, ordered to make restitu-
tion to his former employer in the
amount of $46,325 plus interest,
and assessed the costs and expenses
of the disciplinary proceedings in
the amount of $1,200. The suspen-
sion was effective March 17, 2016.
If reinstated, Mr. Asdell shall be
placed on probation on such terms
and conditions as are ordered upon
While employed with a law firm,
Mr. Asdell diverted client payments
for legal services to himself instead
of the firm. After the firm terminated his employment, Mr. Asdell
distributed his business card on at
least one occasion, which still identified him as a member of the firm.
He also failed to update his AVVO.
com and LinkedIn.com listings,
which identified him as a member
of the firm.
Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offense; dishonest or selfish
motive; substantial experience in
the practice of law; and illegal conduct.
Mitigating factors: personal or
emotional problems; full and free
disclosure to disciplinary board or
cooperative attitude toward proceedings; and remorse.
Mr. Asdell violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.C T., ERs 7. 1 (
communications concerning a lawyer’s services),