board of governors news for members lawyer regulation people
The State Bar of Arizona Board of
Governors held its regular meeting
on May 19, 2017, in Phoenix.
3 President Lisa Loo called the board
meeting to order at 8: 35 a.m.
3 President’s Report—Lisa Loo:
Encouraged the board to consider
adding back into the 2018 budget
the ability for the president-elect
to attend the Western States Bar
Conference in the future. It is one
of the most helpful conferences,
focusing on issues facing man-
datory bar associations.
3 Attended the Bar Leadership
Institute (BLI) Graduation where
15 graduates received their certificates of completion of the program. There will be a BLI event
after the board’s June 13 meeting.
3 The Convention is approaching
and there will be a silent auction
which benefits the homeless in
Tucson. Dee-Dee Samet request-
ed board members participate by
providing one to two auction
items each from throughout
the state. Suggestions include:
restaurants, hotels, cabins, sports
events, etc. Dean Marc Miller has
agreed to being auctioned off for
“Dinner with the Dean.”
3 Call to the Public—President
Lisa Loo made a Call to the Public
and, hearing nothing, moved to
the next agenda item.
3 CEO/ED Report—John Phelps:
3 Announced new General
Counsel Lisa Panahi. John
Furlong, who suffered a stroke,
will not be in a position to
return to work as General
3 Introduced Employee of the
Quarter Lisa Casablanca,
Fee Arbitration Program
Unless otherwise noted, the issues are taken verbatim from either the petition for review or the certified question.
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Jones/Suzan McLaughlin, CV-16-0266-PR, 2 CA-SA 16-0035
Multiple Arizona statutes and prior decisions of this Court and Division One hold that the terms “paternity” and
“maternity” are not gender neutral. Did Division Two err in finding that the female same-sex spouse of an artificially
inseminated woman was entitled to the marital “paternity” presumption under A.R.S. § 25-814(A) to establish legal
parentage? Arizona does not have a statute that establishes parentage for male or female spouses of artificially inseminated
mothers. Did Division Two err in judicially adopting the exact test and language from the Uniform Parentage Act, under
the guise of judicial interpretation?
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey, CR-16-0390-PR, 2 CA-CR 15-0300
Did the court of appeals err in its interpretation of A.R.S. § 13-3822 to conclude that persons who become homeless
after living at a residence must register their homeless status with the sheriff within 72 hours of becoming homeless?
Legacy Foundation Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Commission, CV-16-0306-PR, 1 CA-CV 15-0455
1. Until the Court of Appeals ruling below, both the First And Second Divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals were in agreement that
A.R.S. § 12-902(B) permitted challenges to an agency’s jurisdiction even after the time to seek judicial review had lapsed. Under State ex rel.
Dandoy v. Phoenix, 133 Ariz. 334 (App. 1982) and Arkules v. Board of Adjustment, 151 Ariz. 438 (App. 1986), did the Maricopa County
Superior Court and the Court of Appeals err when it dismissed as untimely LFAF’s appeal challenging the Commission’s jurisdiction over
Additional issues presented to but not decided by the Court of Appeals:
2. Under FEC v. Wis. Right To Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), does the Commission’s determination that LFAF’s advertisement constituted
express advocacy—asserting jurisdiction over a statute whose enforcement authorities are confined to the Secretary of State’s office—create
unconstitutional ambiguity and conflicting regulatory authorities within the state when LFAF’s advertisement was aired 134 days before the
primary election, discussed only issues, educated listeners about issues the organization that Mayor Smith served as president espoused,
urged listeners to contact Mayor Smith to express disapproval of those issues, and did not discuss Mayor Smith’s qualification for governor
or mention another candidate’s name?
Louis E. Cespedes v. Lee/State, CR-16-0384-PR, 2 CA-SA 16-0040
The State must present a fair recitation of the law to the grand jury. Here, the State improperly instructed the grand jury on law related to justification by claiming that the relationship of the accused to the child is irrelevant to determine if there is probable cause an offense was committed and that it is not in the purview of the grand jury to determine if there is probable cause a defendant lacked justification. Must a grand jury
consider whether conduct is justified using an objective standard to determine reasonableness in order to return an indictment?
Marianne N. v DCS/O.N./I. T./A.G., CV-16-0259-PR, 1 CA-JV 16-0085
Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the juvenile court’s termination of a biological mother’s, MARIANNE N.’s (‘Petitioner/
Appellant’) rights. Particularly, Petitioner/Appellant contends that the Court of Appeals reasoning is erroneous in the following sections of the
1. Rule 64(C) is Constitutional; and
2. Termination of Mother’s Parental Rights Is in the Children’s Best Interests.
compiled by Judy Schaffert,
Chief Staff Attorney
Arizona Supreme Court
—continued from p. 62
BOARD OF GOVERNORS MAY MEETING REVIEW