78 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2017 www.azbar.org/AZAttorney
J;;; L. H;; | ;;;.;;;.;;;;
P;;;; C;;;;;; | ;;;.;;;.;;;;
Our ADR group o;ers mediation and
arbitration services to lawyers, businesses
and individuals to resolve civil, business and
commercial disputes in a variety of areas.
Mitigating factors: absence of dishonest or
selfish motive, and remorse.
Ms. Nair violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1. 3, 1. 4, and 8. 1(d); and Rule 54(d),
KENT M. NICHOLAS
Bar No. 015220; File No. 16-0804
PDJ No. 2017-9010
By final judgment and order dated April 4, 2017
the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an
agreement for discipline by consent by which
Kent M. Nicholas, Mesa, Ariz., was reprimanded
and placed on two years of probation for violating the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.
He also was ordered to participate in the Member
Assistance Program (MAP), complete nine CLE
hours in addition to the yearly mandated requirement, and ordered to pay costs and expenses
In the single count of the complaint, Mr.
Nicholas represented the named defendant in a
criminal pretrial matter and two criminal probation violation matters. After the defendant signed
a plea agreement, but prior to the court pronouncing sentence, Mr. Nicholas visited the defendant
in the Durango jail. After a short verbal confrontation with the defendant, whose hands were
cuffed together, Mr. Nicholas struck the defendant across the face with papers in his right hand.
Mr. Nicholas then left the jail.
Aggravating factors: 9. 22 (h), vulnerability of
the client; 9. 22 (i), substantial experience in the
practice of law; and 9. 22 (k), illegal conduct.
Mitigating factors: 9. 23 (a), absence of a prior
disciplinary record; 9. 23 (b), absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; 9. 23 (e), cooperative attitude;
9. 23 (g), character or reputation; and 9. 23 (l),
Mr. Nicholas was found to have violated Rule
41 (g), ARIZ.R.S.CT., and Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 8. 4(b) and 8. 4(d).
WILLIAM S. PAPAZIAN
Bar No.: 020621; File Nos. 16-0199, 16-0622, 16-
PDJ No. 2016-9120
By judgment and order dated April 18, 2017, the
presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which William
S. Papazian, Scottsdale, Ariz., was reprimanded.
He also was assessed the costs and expenses of
the disciplinary proceeding in the amount of
Mr. Papazian was retained by clients in three
different immigration matters. In the first matter,
he collected $4,660 from his client but failed to
communicate reasonably or work diligently on
her case. The client terminated the representation
and filed a bar charge, after which Mr. Papazian
issued a refund.
In the second matter, Mr. Papazian was paid
$750, but performed no work. He said he would
issue a refund but failed to do so, after which the
client filed a bar charge and then Mr. Papazian