72 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2017 www.azbar.org/AZAttorney
Up to 25% off base rates
Make the most of your next trip
with great o;ers like dollars o;, free
weekend days, and a complimentary
Always receive up to 25% o;
base rates with AWD# A727600.
Reserve today at avis.com/sba or
Terms and Conditions: The savings of up to 25% applies to Avis base rates and is applicable only to the time and mileage charges of the rental. Offer does not apply to car group X. All taxes, fees (including but not limited Air
Conditioning Excise Recovery Fee, Concession Recovery Fee, Vehicle License Recovery Fee, Energy Recovery Fee, Tire Management Fee, and Frequent Traveler Fee) and surcharges (including but not limited to Customer Facility Charge and
Environmental Fee Recovery Charge) are extra. Please mention AWD A727600 to take advantage of this offer. Offer is available for U.S. and Canadian residents only for rentals at participating locations in the U. S and Canada. Offer may
not be used in conjunction with any other A WD number, promotion or offer. Weekly rates require a minimum fi ve day rental period. Weekend rate available Thursday noon; car must be returned by Monday 11: 59 p.m., or higher rate will
apply. A Saturday night keep and an advance reservation may be required. Discount valid on rentals checked out no later than December 31, 2016. Offer is subject to vehicle availability at the time of rental and may not be available on
some rates at some times, including some online rates at Avis.com. Car rental return restrictions may apply. Offer subject to change without notice. Holiday and other blackout periods may apply.
©2016 Avis Rent A Car System, LLC
Aggravating factors: a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, bad
faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding, substantial experience
in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution.
Mitigating factors: none.
Mr. Bassett violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1. 1, 1. 2, 1. 3,
1. 4, 1. 5, 1. 16, and 8. 4(d), and Rule
Bar No. 009431; File Nos. 15-0690, 15-
PDJ No. 2016-9109
On March 9, 2017, the presiding
disciplinary judge issued a decision
and order accepting discipline by
consent by which Greg Clark, Phoenix, was suspended for 60 days effective March 10, 2017. Mr. Clark
was assessed the costs and expenses
of the disciplinary proceedings in
the amount of $1,200. Upon reinstatement, Clark shall be placed on
probation for two years and shall
participate in the State Bar’s Law
Office Management Assistance Program and Fee Arbitration Program.
In one case, Mr. Clark did not
answer his client’s calls or send him
discovery while the client was
incarcerated for a federal probation
violation. When the client was released and taken into custody in
Arizona, Mr. Clark never visited
or spoke with the client during
the entire representation except at
court hearings and trial. Mr. Clark
also ignored the State Bar’s repeated requests for information during
much of its investigation. Mr. Clark
had no time records, evidence of
communication with the client, or
documentation reflecting work performed.
In the second case, Mr. Clark
represented an out-of-state criminal
client in an extreme DUI matter.
Mr. Clark filed numerous motions
to continue hearings. The fourth
motion to continue, which was
based on Mr. Clark’s personal
scheduling issues, was denied, and
the client flew to Arizona to meet
with Mr. Clark the day before trial.
The client agreed to plead guilty.
Instead of appearing at the hearing,
Mr. Clark sent a substitute counsel.
The client failed to appear for the
sentencing hearing, and an arrest
warrant was issued. Mr. Clark took
no action and there is no evidence
that he advised the client about the
warrant. The client later learned of
the warrant on his own. At that
point the client complained to Mr.
Clark about the lack of communication and demanded a refund.
Mr. Clark responded to the client
months later stating only that he
would review the file. Mr. Clark
never responded to the client’s refund request. Finally, Mr. Clark
ignored the State Bar’s repeated
requests for information during
much of its investigation.
In the third case, Mr. Clark was
retained to represent a criminal de-
fense client. Five months later, the
client wrote to Mr. Clark concerned
because he had not seen any discov-
ery and advised Mr. Clark that he
needed a mitigation specialist. Mr.
Clark did not respond to the cli-
ent’s letter, nor did he send the cli-
ent notice that he had joined in
a motion to sever the client from
other defendants. The client ulti-
mately terminated the representa-
tion. Mr. Clark never provided the
client with a final accounting. Dur-
ing the course of the State Bar’s
investigation, Mr. Clark did not
timely respond to requests for in-
formation. When he did so, Mr.
Clark acknowledged that he did not
have a signed fee agreement or doc-
umentation reflecting any work
performed for the client beyond
minimal time entries.
Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith
obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with rules or orders of the
disciplinary agency, and substantial
experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors: none.
Mr. Clark violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1. 3 (diligence),
1. 4(a)( 3) and ( 4) (communication),
1. 5(a) (fees), and 1. 16(d) (
and Rule 54(d)( 2), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
(failure to furnish information).