Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Hearings
Which of the following actions is considered an ethical violation in a quasi-judicial hearing?
1) Allowing members of the public with conflicts of interest to speak in favor or against the item.
2) Ensuring that the decision-makers disclose any personal or financial interests related to the case.
3) Deciding the outcome of the hearing based on personal opinions rather than the presented evidence.
4) Following established procedures and rules of evidence during the hearing.
3) Deciding the outcome of the hearing based on personal opinions rather than the presented evidence.
The distinguishing element of a quasi-judicial hearing is to make a decision on a specific dispute or regulatory matter, similar to a court proceeding, where evidence is presented and a ruling is made.
They are called "quasi-judicial" because they are designed to resolve questions of law, utilizing a decision-making body other than a judge or a court.
A decision rendered based on personal opinions rather than the evidence and legal test undermines the fairness and integrity of the process and qualifies as an ethical violation.
What is the maximum amount an individual can contribute to a municipal candidate's campaign in Arizona?
The maximum individual contribution to a municipal candidate's campaign in Arizona is $6,650 per election cycle.
Arizona Secretary of State, Campaign Contribution Limits. In January of each odd-numbered year, the Secretary of State is required to increase the contribution limits specified in Title 16, Chapter 6, Article 1.2 by $100. A.R.S. § 16-931(A)(2).
What is the definition of a quasi-judicial body?
A public body, other than a court of law, possessing the power to hold hearings on disputed matters between a private person and a public agency and to make decisions in the general manner of a court regarding such disputed claims.
ARS 38-431-(4)
Which of the following does not qualify as a "gift" for the purposes of the City of Phoenix's ethics handbook?
1) Tickets to an Arizona Cardinals game given to a councilmember by an IT company seeking a City contract.
2) Hotel accommodations for the Mayor provided by a national conference at which she is appearing as the keynote speaker.
3) A high-end bottle of whiskey given to a councilmember as a "thank you" by a zoning attorney for their efforts on a difficult zoning case.
4) Comped dinner accommodations for a City inspector at a fine dining restaurant recently approved by the inspector.
2) Hotel accommodations for the Mayor provided by a national conference at which she is appearing as the keynote speaker.
Per the City of Phoenix Ethics Handbook, gifts do not include:
a. Compensation received by an elected official, board member, or volunteer as part of the person’s employment outside of the City of Phoenix or as part of the person’s service as a member of a board of directors for a corporation or other elective office, and which compensation is unrelated to the person’s position or office as an elected official, board member, or volunteer
b. A political campaign contribution as permitted by law
c. Compensation received by an elected official, employee, board member, or volunteer from the person’s relative or partner
d. Compensation in the form of a personalized plaque or similar personalized award received by an elected official, employee, board member, or volunteer for the person’s service to the City of Phoenix consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the person’s position or office
e. Compensation in the form of admission, food, beverages, transportation, or accommodations received by an elected official or employee in the capacity as a City of Phoenix representative and related to city business
f. Compensation associated with a relative’s or partner’s elective office
g. Compensation in the form of admission, food, or beverages received by an elected official, employee, board member, or volunteer to attend a community event.
Rule 1.5(a) states that a lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses.
Which of the following is NOT among the factors to be considered for "reasonableness":
a) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
b) the amount involved and the results obtained;
c) the expected timeline of the engagement; or
d) the degree of risk assumed by the law
c) the expected timeline of the engagement
Mr. Glynn drafted and entered into an agreement with a client for a fixed monthly fee of $9,500. The agreement was for a five-year term, terminable by the client only for cause and only if the client paid a termination fee equal to two years’ worth of monthly payments. The agreement contained no ER 1.8-compliant language.
Aggravating factors: selfish or dishonest motive, and substantial experience in the practice of law.
Which of the following is an improper exercise of legislative discretion?
1) A councilmember votes against a rezoning request because they believe it will negatively impact property values and traffic congestion, despite evidence to the contrary.
2) A councilmember votes in favor of a specific area plan because they believe it will revitalize the community in which their personal residence is located.
3) A councilmember votes against a rezoning request because they believe the proposed use will compete directly with a business owned by a major campaign donor.
4) A councilmember votes in favor of an ordinance restricting marijuana dispensaries because they believe marijuana is harmful to the community.
3) A councilmember votes against a rezoning request because they believe the proposed use will compete directly with a business owned by a major campaign donor.
Check land use law text for explanation of scope of legislative authority.
Are there any restrictions on contributions from corporations to municipal candidates in Arizona?
Yes, corporations are prohibited from making direct contributions to municipal candidates in Arizona. Corporations can make unlimited contributions to PACs
Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-916(A).
Is an email that includes a quorum of a City Council members considered a meeting if a pending matter is discussed?
Yes. A meeting is a gathering, in person or through technological devices of a quorum of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including deliberations. This includes telephone and email communications. In 2018, the Legislature amended the definition of “meeting” in A.R.S. § 38-431 to include “[a] one-way electronic communication by one member of a public body that is sent to a quorum of the members of a public body and that proposes legal action” and “[a]n exchange of electronic communications among a quorum of the members of a public body that involves a discussion, deliberation or the taking of legal action by the public body concerning a matter likely to come before the public body for action.”
Citation: ARS 38-431
In accordance with the Arizona Lobbying Handbook, which of the following is not required to be reported by a lobbyist on their periodic reports?
A) The total amount of expenditures made on behalf of or for the benefit of a public official.
B) The specific issues or pieces of legislation the lobbyist is advocating for or against.
C) The names and addresses of all individuals who attended a lobbying event hosted by the lobbyist.
D) The date and amount of any campaign contributions made to an elected official by the lobbyist or their firm.
Correct Answer: C) The names and addresses of all individuals who attended a lobbying event hosted by the lobbyist.
In Arizona, lobbyists are required to report expenditures related to influencing public officials and details of their lobbying activities. However, reporting the names and addresses of all attendees at a lobbying event is generally not required. The focus is typically on financial expenditures and specific lobbying activities rather than personal details of event attendees.
Which of the following is a duty and obligation of an attorney under Rule 41 of the Arizona Supreme Court (Duties and Obligations of Members)?
1) To maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.
2) To avoid engaging in unprofessional conduct and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness unless required by the duties to a client or the tribunal.
3) To protect the interests of current and former clients by planning for the lawyer's termination of or inability to continue a law practice, either temporarily or permanently.
4)
All of the above.
By final judgment and order dated July 7, 2022, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Douglas M. Schumacher, Fountain Hills, Ariz., was reprimanded and placed on probation for 18 months. The terms of probation require Mr. Schumacher to complete a CLE program addressing professionalism, in addition to the annual CLE requirement. He also was ordered to pay the State Bar’s costs and expenses of $1,200.
In a civil case, Mr. Schumacher knowingly sent inappropriate text messages to his client’s 26-year-old daughter. The client’s daughter felt unable to confront Schumacher for fear of negatively affecting Schumacher’s legal representation.
Aggravating factors: vulnerability of the victim and substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors: full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, remorse, and remoteness of prior offenses.
Mr. Schumacher violated Rule 41(b)(7), Ariz.R.S.Ct.
Which of the following is a conflict of interest in a legislative hearing?
1) A councilmember who participates in a discussion about a proposed regulation that could impact their local community.
2) A councilmember who owns property four blocks away from a property being considered for a rezoning request by the legislative body
3) A councilmember who receives a gift from a lobbyist unrelated to any current decision/legislation being considered by the legislative body.
4) A councilmember who owns property that will be uniquely impacted by a zoning overlay being considered by the legislative body.
4) A councilmember who owns property that will be uniquely impacted by a zoning overlay being considered by the legislative body.
ARS 38-503 defines a conflict of interest as any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency.
A "substantial interest" is defined in ARS 38-502 as any nonspeculative pecuniary or proprietary interest, either direct or indirect, other than a remote interest.
In this example, Answer 2 is not close enough in proximity to the subject property to be considered a substantial interest, and falls into the category of a remote interest at most.
What are the qualifications for Mega PAC status?
To qualify as a Mega PAC, it must receive at least $10 from at least 500 individuals in the preceding 4 years.
Citation: Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-908
Can legal action be taken during an executive session?
No. Open meeting law does not permit governing board of public body to take legal action while in executive session, whether or not session was called for purpose of taking such legal action. Cooper v. Arizona Western College Dist. Governing Bd. (App. Div.1 1980) 125 Ariz. 463, 610 P.2d 465.
Which of the following is NOT considered lobbying under Arizona law?
1) Communications between a public official or employee of a public body, designated public lobbyist or authorized public lobbyist and any state officer, except for a member of the legislature or an employee of the legislature.
2) Attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by directly communicating with any legislator.
3) Attempting to influence any rulemaking proceeding by directly communicating with any state officer or employee.
4) Attempting to influence the procurement of materials, services or construction by a state agency when the person is otherwise required to register as a lobbyist for compensation or is employed by, supervised by at any level, or contracted with a person who is otherwise required to register as a lobbyist for compensation.
1) Communications between a public official or employee of a public body, designated public lobbyist or authorized public lobbyist and any state officer, except for a member of the legislature or an employee of the legislature.
Per ARS 41-1231.12, Designated Public Lobbyists and Authorized Public Lobbyists are excluded from the definition of "lobbyist". DPLs and APLs are representatives of Public Bodies in Arizona, which include:
• the Arizona board of regents
• a university under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents
• the judicial department
• any state agency, board, commission, or council
• any county
• any county elected officer who elects to appoint a designated public lobbyist
• any city, town, district or other political subdivision of this state that receives and uses tax revenues and that employs, retains, engages, or uses, with or without compensation, a DPL or APL.
ER Rule 8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Does this include conduct outside of conduct related to the representation of clients?
Yes, Rule 8.4 is not limited actions taken in the practice of law.
By final judgment and order dated May 11, 2023, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Nathan John Hogle, Mesa, Ariz., was suspended for one year. Mr. Hogle also was ordered to pay restitution totaling $18,357 to 17 former clients and to pay the State Bar’s costs and expenses of $1,200.
Mr. Hogle, who was licensed to practice law only in Arizona, held himself out as able to represent clients in other states in the areas of trusts and estates. Mr. Hogle did so through a nonattorney employee and through online and promotional materials. He falsely advertised his services by stating, “A tradition of excellence since 1990,” though he had been admitted to practice law only since 2013.
Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses, and vulnerability of victim.
Mitigating factor: cooperation with the State Bar’s investigation.
Two screening files, State Bar No. 23-0073 and State Bar No. 23-0142, were dismissed.
Mr. Hogle violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 5.1, 5.3, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). He also violated the counterparts to ERs 1.4, 1.5, 5.3, 5.5, 7.1, 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) in Ohio, Arkansas and Missouri, and ER 7.2(d) in Arkansas.
In a quasi-judicial hearing concerning a contentious land use permit, a hearing officer receives ex parte communications from a stakeholder who is deeply invested in the outcome of the permit decision. The hearing officer reviews the contents of the communication but does not disclose this interaction to the other parties involved in the hearing. What is the most appropriate course of action for the hearing officer to take to address the ethical concerns related to this situation?
A) The hearing officer continues with the hearing as planned, maintaining that the ex parte communication did not influence their impartiality, and addresses the content of the communication during the final decision.
B) The hearing officer discloses the receipt of the ex parte communication to all parties involved in the hearing and includes the content of the communication in the public record.
C) The hearing officer recuses themselves from the case due to the ex parte communication and requests that another officer or judge be appointed to handle the hearing.
D) The hearing officer acknowledges the ex parte communication but only summarizes its content during the hearing without providing details to maintain fairness.
Answer:
B) The hearing officer discloses the receipt of the ex parte communication to all parties involved in the hearing and includes the content of the communication in the public record.
Disclosing the receipt of the ex parte communication and including its content in the public record is the most appropriate action to ensure transparency and fairness in a quasi-judicial hearing. This approach addresses the ethical concerns by making all relevant information available to all parties involved, thereby maintaining the integrity of the decision-making process and ensuring that all parties have access to the same information.
Can an individual make a contribution to a PAC that is earmarked for a certain candidate?
No, A contributor shall not give and a committee shall not accept a contribution that has been earmarked for a candidate.
Citation: Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-918
No. Legal action, as defined by Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, extends beyond mere formal act of voting; discussions and deliberations by governing body members prior to final decision are an integral and necessary part of any “decision, commitment or promise” and are included within the definition of “legal action.” Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. 75-8.
According to the City of Phoenix Ethics Handbook for Elected Officials, which of the following scenarios would not be considered a "gift"?
A) An invitation to a high-profile charity gala with a substantial ticket price covered by a corporate sponsor.
B) A discount on a service or product provided by a business entity seeking to build a relationship with the official.
C) A modest promotional item, such as a coffee mug, received from a company at a public trade show.
D) A personal consultation offered at no charge by a professional seeking to establish a business relationship with the official.
C) A modest promotional item, such as a coffee mug, received from a company at a public trade show.
In the City of Phoenix Ethics Handbook, a "gift" typically refers to items or benefits that could influence an official’s actions or decisions. Modest promotional items of minimal value, like a coffee mug from a public trade show, often do not fall under the same scrutiny as more substantial items or those offered with the intention of influence.
Are there any Rules of Professional Conduct that the lawyer did NOT violate?
By judgment of disbarment dated Feb. 2, 2017, a discipline hearing panel disbarred Kathy McCoy O’Quinn, Phoenix, from the practice of law, effective immediately. She also was ordered to pay costs and expenses totaling $2,017.40 and restitution to two former clients totaling $8,500.
In the three-count complaint, Ms. O’Quinn failed to perform any legal services of value for her client. Her violations included filing a Notice of Appearance in the wrong case, filing an incomprehensible appellate brief, failing to pay required filing fees despite numerous requests by the Court of Appeals, failing to communicate reasonably with her clients, failing to provide a client with a copy of the file despite numerous requests, failing to interview witnesses, failing to appear at previously scheduled court hearings, and failing to appear at an Order to Show Cause hearing. During the State Bar’s investigation, Ms. O’Quinn failed to respond to the State Bar’s requests for information.
Ms. O’Quinn violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., ERs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and Rule 54(c).
Which of the following is NOT a reason for a Phoenix city councilmember to recuse themselves from a legislative decision?
1) The councilmember was previously employed by, and anticipates doing future work for, a firm seeking a city contract.
2) The councilmember owns a stake in medical marijuana dispensaries impacted by a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance restricting the quantity of use permits.
3) The councilmember's sister sits on the board of director's for a non-profit organization with an application before the council for approval.
4) The councilmember is a corporate officer of a restaurant chain whose biggest competitor is seeking a zoning approval for a store within the trade area of one of the councilmember's company's restaurants.
3) The councilmember's sister sits on the board of director's for a non-profit organization with an application before the council for approval.
A councilmember (or relative) who serves as a non-salaried corporate officer or board member does not have a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the outcome and therefore doesn't qualify as a conflict of interest.
Can a candidate transfer campaign funds to run for a different office?
1. A candidate committee for a city or town candidate shall not transfer contributions to that same candidate's committee for a statewide or legislative office.
2. If a candidate committee for a city or town office transfers contributions to a candidate committee for a county office for that same candidate, the candidate committee for the county office shall not transfer contributions to a statewide or legislative candidate committee for that same candidate during the twenty-four months immediately following that transfer of contributions to the county candidate committee
Citation: ARS 16-913
If a public body with a quorum present meets in executive session to discuss the salary of a public employee, can the public employee request the minutes from the executive session?
Yes, minutes of and discussions made at executive sessions shall be kept confidential except from:
1. Members of the public body that met in executive session.
2. Officers, appointees or employees who were the subject of discussion or consideration.
3. The auditor general on a request made in connection with an audit authorized as provided by law.
4. A county attorney or the attorney general when investigating alleged violations of this article.
According to the Arizona Lobbying Handbook, which of the following actions by a lobbyist would most likely be considered an ethical violation?
A) Providing a legislator with a well-researched policy brief that includes arguments both in favor and against the proposed legislation.
B) Hosting a dinner for a legislator and their staff, where the cost is fully disclosed and reported as a lobbying expenditure.
C) Offering a paid internship to a legislator’s family member with the intent to influence the legislator’s support for a bill.
D) Sending a regular newsletter to legislators updating them on industry developments and changes.
Correct Answer: C) Offering a paid internship to a legislator’s family member with the intent to influence the legislator’s support for a bill.
Ethically, offering a paid internship to a legislator's family member with the intent to influence the legislator's support for a bill would likely be considered a violation. This action could be perceived as an attempt to gain undue influence over the legislator through personal or financial incentives, which is against ethical guidelines and reporting requirements set forth in the Arizona Lobbying Handbook.
Under Arizona Ethical Rule 1.6, which scenario requires a lawyer to avoid representing a client due to a conflict of interest?
A) Representing a client whose interests are directly adverse to those of a former client in a matter that is not substantially related to the prior representation.
B) Representing two clients in unrelated matters where there is no risk of shared confidential information.
C) Representing a new client when the lawyer has previously represented a client in a matter where the new client’s interests are not directly adverse to the former client’s interests and the former client consents to the representation.
D) Representing a client when the lawyer is aware of a personal financial interest that does not directly affect the representation.
A) Representing a client whose interests are directly adverse to those of a former client in a matter that is not substantially related to the prior representation.
Under Arizona Ethical Rule 1.6, a lawyer must avoid conflicts of interest, particularly when representing a new client whose interests are directly adverse to those of a former client in a matter that is substantially related to the prior representation.
In Count One, Mr. Baker acted as the lawyer for adverse parties in a civil suit related to a botched vehicle repossession that resulted in shots being fired by one of his longtime clients toward another of his longtime clients. In doing so, Mr. Baker hid his dual representations from both clients. While engaging in the dual representations, Mr. Baker shared confidential client information. In addition to his conflict of interest in the civil case, in a related criminal case Mr. Baker held himself out as the lawyer for both the shooter and one of the victims—a further conflict of interest.
Mr. Baker violated Rule 42, Ariz. R.S.CT., ERs 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6(a), 1.7(a), 1.8(b), 1.9(c), 1.16(a)(1), 3.2, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d); and Rule 54(d), ARIZ. R.S.CT.