Arizona Attorney - December 2015

Adams & Clark, PC

ADAMS & CLARK, PC

520 E. Portland Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, Arizona 85004

OFFICE 602-258-3542 FAX 602-258-1377 EMAIL thefirm@adamsclark.com WEB adamsclark.com

RALPH ADAMS, ESQ.

Former Senior Counsel, Utah State Bar Former Senior Bar Counsel, State Bar of Arizona

25 Years of Practice

KAREN CLARK, ESQ.

Former Ethics Counsel, State Bar of Arizona Former Senior Bar Counsel, State Bar of Arizona

25 Years of Practice

Our experienced attorneys have more than 35 years combined experience in discipline and ethics issues.

FREE CONSULTATION

DISCIPLINE R ADMISSIONS R REINSTATEMENTS

NEED HELP WITH A STATE BAR MATTER?

LLC was managed and controlled by Husband, and it appeared he formed the LLC in an attempt to permanently control wife’s mul-timillion-dollar, premarital estate. On review, Division Two agreed that the operating agreement was a post-nuptial agreement—not an arm’s-length business transaction. Wife’s claim of fraud thus shifted the burden to Husband to show that the agreement was not unfair or fraudulent by clear and convincing evidence. The case reaffirms In re Harber’s Estate and refuses to limit it to property division in the context of divorce. It also reaffirms that spouses owe each other fiduciary duties. Austin and Austin, 2 CA-CV 14-0134, 4/30/15.

Trial Court Must Include A.R.S. §25-324 factors in school placement case where affects parenting time. Father filed a motion requesting that the minor child attend an out of state boarding school over Mother’s objection.

The trial court treated the matter
as a school choice issue without ap-
plying best interest factors set forth
by A.R.S. § 25-403. The appellate
court held that the case was more
than a school placement issue as

The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review or jurisdiction of the following issues on Sept. 22, 2015*:

Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 1 CA-CV 13-0358;

236 Ariz. 511, 342 P.3d 847 (Ct. App. 2015); Ariz. Supreme Court No.

CV-15-0065-PR Granted as to Issues 1-3 only:

1. Did the court of appeals err and create bad policy by abolishing the widely accepted, longstanding LID on the ground that it conflicts with Arizona’s UCATA?

2. Did the court of appeals erroneously permit Watts to proceed with a consumer fraud claim where no direct ‘merchant-consumer transaction’ is possible because prescription drugs are not ordinary goods sold directly to patients?

3. Did the court of appeals contravene federal law by treating ‘patient informational materials’ Watts received from her physician and pharmacist as DTC marketing materials?

Jesus Busso-Estopellan v. Hon. Mroz/State, 1 CA-SA 15-0068 (Order); Ariz. Supreme Court No.

CV-15-0102-PR
Granted:
1. Whether Respondent abused her discretion in ruling that Petitioner’s offer to plead guilty signified
only a desire to avoid a death sentence, to the exclusion of any acceptance of responsibility.

2. Whether Respondent abused her discretion in excluding Petitioner’s proffered mitigation evidence of his expressed willingness to plead guilty with a stipulation to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment?