99 E. Virginia Ave., Suite 220, Phoenix, AZ 85004 | www.bfazlaw.com
Mike: 602.603.1442 | Maureen: 602.603.1521
small firm – big practice
Maureen Beyers and Mike Farrell announce
their new Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice
Arizona Supreme Court
Committee on Examinations
Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2017
County, but there is no other compensation for
service as a committee member.
Term: Initial appointment of four years, with the
possibility of reappointment.
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. In addition, 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 Examinations.
Openings: Several appointments 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. 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.
Terms: Initial term of four years, with the possibility of reappointment.
Bar No. 009431
PDJ No. 2017-9059-R
By order dated and filed May 19, 2017, Greg
Clark, Phoenix, was reinstated to the active practice of law in Arizona effective on that date.
Bar No. 009885; File No. 17-1138-R
PDJ No. 2017-9047-R
By order of the presiding disciplinary judge dated April 19, 2017, Diana McCulloch, Tempe,
Ariz., was reinstated as an active member of the
State Bar of Arizona from a 60-day suspension,
effective the date of the order.
DAVID K. ROSEN
Bar No. 018589; File No. 17-0939-R
PDJ No. 2017-9039-R
By order dated and filed April 19, 2017, David
K. Rosen, Scottsdale, Ariz., was reinstated to the
active practice of law in Arizona effective that
date. Mr. Rosen will remain on probation for
two years with the State Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance Program and Member Assistance Program, and a practice monitor.
CHARLES W. BASSETT
Bar No. 023581; File Nos. 16-0076, 16-0558, 16-
PDJ No. 2016-9084
Following a contested hearing on Nov. 14, 2016,
a hearing panel issued a final judgment and order
of disbarment dated Dec. 14, 2016, disbarring
Charles W. Bassett, Mesa, Ariz., from the practice
of law. Mr. Bassett also was ordered to pay restitution to two complainants totaling $6,000.
In count one of the underlying three-count matter, Mr. Bassett failed to comply with disclosure
deadlines in a criminal matter and failed to appear
for multiple hearings. He also failed to cooperate
with the State Bar’s investigation by failing to
timely respond to the bar charge and by failing to
appear for his deposition.
In count two, Mr. Bassett repeatedly informed
his client in a civil matter that he would send a
demand letter to an opposing party, but failed to
follow through on his promise. He eventually
stopped communicating with the client altogether,
and failed to provide a refund to the client for
fees paid specifically for the demand letter.
In count three, Mr. Bassett failed to respond
to a motion to dismiss in a personal injury case.
As a result, his client’s case was dismissed with
prejudice. He also failed to respond to the bar