1. Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.C T.
2. ER 8. 4(a) provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to knowingly assist
or induce another lawyer in violating the
Rules of Professional Conduct, or to do
so through the acts of another.
3. ABA Formal Op. 93-371 (Restrictions on
the Right to Represent Clients in the
Future) (April 16, 1993).
4. Chicago Bar Association Informal Ethics
Op. 2012-10 (Feb. 12, 2013).
5. ABA Formal Op. 00-417 (Settlement
Terms Limiting a Lawyer’s Use of Information) (April 7, 2000).
6. Cf. S.C. Ethics Adv. Op. 93-20 (1993)
(not improper if agreement intended to
simply request that plaintiff not volunteer
to testify in other cases. But if it is attempting to prevent plaintiff and counsel from
providing relevant information, Rule 3. 4(f)
is violated) with Ct. Bar Ass’n Inf. Op.
2011-1 (Jan. 19, 2011) (settlement confidentiality provision that prohibits plaintiff
from discussing facts and circumstances
giving rise to her claim violates Rule
7. For an excellent discussion on these issues,
see Jon Bauer, Buying Witness Silence: Evi-dence-Suppressing Settlements and Lawyers’
Ethics, 87 OR. L. REV. 480 (2008).
EYE ON ETHICS
—continued from p. 12
every franchisee who had contacted them, and
who they had contacted, concerning potential
claims against it, ( 2) not solicit or contact any
franchisee concerning potential claims against
the franchisor, ( 3) not “participate” in any way
in any legal action brought by a franchisee
against the franchisor–defendant, and ( 4) dismiss any and all bar complaints currently pending concerning the lawyers in the case. The
opinion found the terms of the proposed settlement to be in violation of ER 1. 6 (
Confidentiality of Information) because the identity of a
lawyer’s clients and potential clients is “
information relating to” a representation that is protected by the Rule, and in violation of ER 5. 6
because it attempted to restrict the plaintiffs’
lawyers’ rights to represent other clients. Finally, it was pointed out that it was not within the
power of counsel to dismiss a bar complaint in
view of what is now Arizona Supreme Court
Rule 48(g) (Non-abatement), providing that
the State Bar is not bound by any settlement
between a complainant and a respondent.
There are a few unsettled issues in this area,
but to be forewarned is to be forearmed. If confronted with a questionable term in a settlement agreement that your client really wants to
sign, remember that occasionally there are limits to what we can agree to do in order to
advance a client’s cause.
Local Connections. National Reach.
We Get Businesses Sold!
From Our Offices Across the U.S.
To help your client take the first step in getting top dollar for their business,
contact Jim Afinowich at firstname.lastname@example.org or 480-327-6610.
#1 in Ranking Arizona for 13 Consecutive Years • www.ibgfoxfin.com
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A multi-office national law firm is seeking ATTORNEYS for its Phoenix office.
Recruiting attorneys for Litigation, Financial Services and Corporate Law Departments.
LITIGATION DEPARTMENT is looking for attorneys with experience in the
following practice areas: professional liability defense, general liability defense,
insurance defense, commercial litigation, and workers compensation defense.
Portable book of business is a plus.
CORPORATE LAW AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS are looking
for attorneys with experience handling securities and broker dealer matters, inter-
national and domestic taxation, bankruptcy, real estate, intellectual property,
international law, corporate structure, asset protection, land use, and mergers
and acquisitions. Portable book of business is a plus.
Also seeking 1–3 year associates.
Email resume to
2390 E. Camelback Road, Suite 440, Phoenix, Arizona 85016