GEICO contracts with various membership entities and other organizations, but these entities do not underwrite the offered insurance products. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in
all states or all GEICO companies. Discount amount varies in some states. One group discount applicable per policy. Coverage is individual. In New York a premium reduction may be available. GEICO may not be involved in a
formal relationship with each organization; however, you still may qualify for a special discount based on your membership, employment or affiliation with those organizations. GEICO is a registered service mark of
Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. GEICO Gecko image © 1999-2015. © 2015 GEICO
As a State Bar of Arizona member you may be
eligible for a special discount with GEICO.
WE’RE IN THE BUSINESS
OF SAVING YOU MORE.
geico.com/bar/sba | 1-800-368-2734
A SUBSIDIARY OF BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.
JEFFREY L. BRADFORD
Bar No. 017148; File Nos. 16-0018-R,
PDJ No. 2015-9119
By order of the Arizona Supreme
Court dated and effective June 17,
2016, Jeffrey L. Bradford, Phoenix,
was reinstated to practice law with a
one-year term of probation.
Mr. Bradford was summarily suspended on June 8, 2010,
for non-payment of dues. Under
Rule 64(c), ARIZ.R.S.CT., a lawyer
seeking reinstatement after being
suspended for more than five years
must re-take the bar exam. Mr.
Bradford filed an application for
reinstatement on June 4, 2015, but
for various reasons withdrew it. He
filed a new application in November 2015. He also provided evidence that for the three years prior
to his reinstatement hearing he
worked as a paralegal, performed
legal research, and completed 50
hours of CLE. The hearing panel
and the Supreme Court agreed that
there was good cause to waive the
bar exam requirement.
KENNETH M. LEVINE
Bar No. 009500; File No. 16-0014-R
PDJ No. 2015-9108
On May 19, 2016, the Arizona
Supreme Court issued an order that
Kenneth M. Levine, Brookline, Mass.,
be reinstated as an active member of
the State Bar of Arizona pursuant to
Rule 65 of the Rules of the Supreme
Court, effective that date. The
Court also granted Mr. Levine’s
motion to waive the requirement
under Rule 64(c) that he take the
Arizona Bar Examination as part of
the reinstatement process.
TRANSFER TO DISABILITY
THAYER C. LINDAUER
Bar No. 001531; File No. 15-2147
PDJ No. 2016-9056
By order dated June 13, 2016, the
presiding disciplinary judge transferred Thayer C. Lindauer, Sun
City, Ariz., to disability inactive status, effective June 13, 2016.
PATRICK E. MCGULLICUDDY
Bar No. 006191; File No. 16-9046
PDJ No. 2016-9046
By order filed April 21, 2015, the
presiding disciplinary judge accepted
a joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status and transferred
Patrick E. McGullicuddy, Phoenix,
indefinitely to disability inactive status effective March 30, 2015.
Bar No. 014723; File No. 15-1729
PDJ No. 2016-9043
By final judgment and order dated
May 18, 2016, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by
which Trini Armenta, Tucson, was
reprimanded and placed on probation for six months. The sole term
of Mr. Armenta’s probation is to
complete a one-time Law Office
Management Assistance Program
consultation regarding his written
fee agreement. He also was assessed
the costs of the disciplinary proceedings totaling $1,200.
Mr. Armenta was hired to represent a client in her divorce case. Mr.
Armenta’s fee agreement called for
the client to pay a $5,000 advance
Nearly 17,000 attorneys are eligible to
practice law in Arizona. Many attorneys
share the same names. All discipline
reports should be read carefully for
names, addresses and Bar numbers.
fee, $500 of which was non-refundable. His agreement, however, did
not include language required by
ER 1. 5(d)( 3) advising the client that
she could discharge Mr. Armenta at
any time and be entitled to a refund
of all or part of the fee, including
the $500 “non-refundable” portion,
based upon the value of the representation.
During the representation, Mr.
Armenta developed romantic feelings toward his client. Mr. Armenta
continued to act as counsel in the
divorce proceeding despite the significant risk that the representation
could be materially limited by his
personal interest in her. They had
sex one time during the course of
the attorney–client relationship.
The lone aggravating factor was
Mitigating factors were absence
of a prior disciplinary record, full
and free disclosure to the disciplinary board, and remorse.