 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Speer v. Donfeld6/19/1998
io 1986) (citation omitted).
There, counsel had deceived the court and opposing counsel for over two years as to the existence of documents, production of which had been continuously requested. Although the admonition of Royal Indemnity Co. is good advice for courts presented with counsel who are engaging in misconduct as we find it defined in Arizona or whose conduct is "truly egregious" and likely to "infect" future proceedings, the record here fails to support a Conclusion that Coulter had engaged in such conduct.
None of the ten cited instances of "misconduct," either individually or collectively, amounted to conduct that was intentionally wrong or that deliberately violated any law, court rule, or order. Accordingly, we conclude that the respondent Judge abused his discretion in revoking Coulter's admission. See Grant (court abuses discretion if substantial evidence does not support ruling). We therefore grant special action relief and reinstate Coulter's admission pro hac vice.
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge
CONCURRING: WILLIAM E. DRUKE, Chief Judge M. JAN FLOREZ, Presiding Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|