You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Tarletz

Citations: 165 Ariz. 243; 798 P.2d 381; 70 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 13; 1990 Ariz. LEXIS 237Docket: No. SB-90-0014-D; Disc. Comm. No. 87-0948

Court: Arizona Supreme Court; September 20, 1990; Arizona; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Supreme Court of Arizona's Disciplinary Commission recommended the disbarment of an attorney, Ruthanne Tarletz, for engaging in unauthorized practice of law after her suspension for nonpayment of dues. Despite the suspension, she continued to act on behalf of clients, prompting the Arizona State Bar to file multiple complaints. Her actions included filing improper documents and displaying disrespect towards the judicial process. The Commission highlighted significant aggravating factors such as a pattern of misconduct, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and prior disciplinary offenses, while finding no mitigating factors. The Commission applied the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, particularly Standard 8.1, which supports disbarment for intentional misconduct after suspension, and Standard 7.1, for knowing breaches causing harm. The Commission unanimously agreed with the recommendation for disbarment to prevent further violations and ensure record completeness for any future readmission requests. Additionally, disciplinary costs were imposed on the respondent. The court's decision was supported by all concurring justices, emphasizing the necessity of disbarment as a preventive and punitive measure.

Legal Issues Addressed

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

Application: Standard 8.1 of the ABA Standards justifies disbarment for intentional misconduct post-suspension; Standard 7.1 supports disbarment for breaches causing serious injury.

Reasoning: The respondent practiced law while suspended, which is a violation of the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, specifically Standard 8.1.

Application of Aggravating Factors

Application: Aggravating factors, such as prior offenses and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, were considered and led to a recommendation of disbarment.

Reasoning: The Commission found no mitigating factors but identified several aggravating circumstances: prior disciplinary offenses, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and substantial legal experience.

Disciplinary Sanctions for Misconduct

Application: Disbarment is appropriate when an attorney's misconduct includes practicing law without authorization and showing disregard for judicial processes.

Reasoning: The Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona recommends disbarment for Ruthanne Tarletz due to her misconduct and unauthorized practice of law following her suspension.

Imposition of Disciplinary Costs

Application: The respondent is required to pay disciplinary costs as part of the sanctions imposed.

Reasoning: Disciplinary costs amounting to $1,202.97 are also imposed on the respondent.

Unauthorized Practice of Law

Application: Engaging in legal activities while suspended constitutes unauthorized practice, warranting disciplinary action.

Reasoning: Despite not being reinstated, she engaged in unauthorized legal activities, including filing motions and appearing in court on behalf of clients.