sentation, to refund the fee the client had paid
to her to attend a hearing that she missed; and
falsely informed bar counsel that she was never
retained or paid by her client.
In the third case, Ms. Elliott failed to
promptly file a petition to modify child support
and parenting time, as directed by her client;
failed to file a stipulation the parties had entered
into, which resulted in the petition to modify
custody, parenting time and child support being
dismissed; failed to timely respond to her
client’s repeated requests for information;
failed, upon termination of representation, to
promptly provide her client with the file she
maintained on his behalf or a refund of the
unearned fees that her client had paid; falsely led
her client to believe she had filed the parties’
stipulation; and lied or misrepresented facts to
her client regarding the status and dismissal of
his case.
During the State Bar’s investigation into the
charges of misconduct, Ms. Elliott failed to
respond to most requests for information and
documents regarding the charges filed against
her, failed to comply with voice-mail messages
directing a return call, and failed to make herself
available to talk with a State Bar investigator.
Aggravating factors: dishonest or selfish
motive; a 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; submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the
disciplinary process; refusal to acknowledge the
wrongful nature of her conduct; vulnerability of
the victims, and substantial experience in the
practice of law.
Mitigating factor: absence of a prior disciplinary history.
Ms. Elliott violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
specifically ER 1. 2, ER 1. 3, ER 1. 4(a), ER
1. 5(b), ER 1. 15(d), ER 1. 16(d), ER 3. 2, ER
8. 1(a) and (b), and ER 8. 4(c) and (d), and
Rules 32(c)( 3) and 54(d)( 1) and ( 2),
ARIZ.R.S.CT.
HARRY P. FRIEDLANDER
Bar No. 005244; File No. 11-3431
PDJ No. 2012-9104
By order dated Nov. 26, 2013, the Arizona
Supreme Court affirmed a disciplinary hearing
panel’s Mar. 19, 2013, report and order suspending Harry P. Friedlander, Mesa, for 60 days
and placing him on probation for two years during which time he must participate in the State
Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance
Program. Mr. Friedlander’s suspension is effective 30 days from Nov. 26, 2013. Mr.
Friedlander also was ordered to pay costs of
$6,777.65.
In a justice court action, Mr. Friedlander
failed to file a response to a motion for judg-
Doran failed to comply with court orders and
has failed to satisfy any of the judgments
entered against him.
Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary
record, dishonest or selfish motion, a pattern
of misconduct; multiple offenses; bad-faith
obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by
failing to respond to the State Bar; substantial
experience in the practice of law; and indifference to making restitution.
There were no mitigating factors.
Mr. Doran violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
specifically ERs 1. 15, 3. 3(a), 3. 4(c), 8. 1(b), and
8. 4(c) and (d), and Rules 43(b)( 5) and (d)( 3)
and 54(c) and (d)( 2), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
SUSAN E. ELLIOTT
Bar No. 020574; File Nos. 12-0660, 12-2352, 12-
2646
PDJ No. 2013-9070
By judgment and order of the presiding disciplinary judge dated Oct. 28, 2013, Susan E.
Elliott, Phoenix, was disbarred, effective immediately. She also was ordered to pay restitution
to three former clients and was assessed
the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
Ms. Elliott’s misconduct occurred during
her representation of three clients in family law
cases. In one case, Ms. Elliott failed to file a
petition to modify child support, as directed by
her client on several occasions; repeatedly failed
to provide information and draft documents to
her client, as promised; failed to timely respond
to her client’s repeated requests for information; failed to communicate to her client in
writing, before or within a reasonable time after
commencing the representation, the scope
of the representation and the basis or rate of
the fee and expenses for which she would be
responsible; failed, upon termination of representation, to promptly provide her client with
the file she maintained on her behalf or a refund
of the unearned fees that her client had paid;
lied to her client about the extent of her contact
with the opposing party; delayed the resolution
of post-decree issues by failing to diligently and
promptly represent her client; and failed to
report a current address to the State Bar within
30 days of the effective date of her change of
address.
In the second case, Ms. Elliott failed to
appear and represent her client at a hearing;
failed to adequately communicate with her client
and discontinued her representation of him
without notice; failed to timely respond to
repeated requests for information made by her
client and his wife; failed to communicate to her
client in writing, before or within a reasonable
time after commencing the representation, the
scope of the representation and the basis or rate
of the fee and expenses for which he would be
responsible; failed, upon termination of repre-
LAWYER REGULATION
Compromise
Save Money and Time
by Using an Arbitrator
or Mediator
ADR &
MEDIATION
GUIDE
You can access the
Arizona Attorney Magazine
year ‘round
www.azbar.org/AZAttorney
and click on the
ADR & Mediation Guide link
Go to
To be included in the next Guide
call 602-340-7306 or email
Lynn.Heinsohn@staff.azbar.org
