When a lawyer’s employment with a firm is terminated, both the firm and the departing lawyer have ethical obligations to notify affected clients, avoid prejudice to those clients, and share information as necessary to facilitate continued representation and avoid conflicts.  These ethical obligations can best be satisfied through cooperation and planning for any departure.

ER's 1.6 and 1.1 require that an attorney act competently to safeguard client information and confidences. It is not unethical to store such electronic information on computer systems whether or not those same systems are used to connect to the internet. However, to comply with these ethical rules as they relate to the client's electronic files or communications, an attorney or law firm is obligated to take competent and reasonable steps to assure that the client's confidences are not disclosed to third parties through theft or inadvertence.  In addition, an attorney or law firm is obligated to take reasonable and competent steps to assure that the client's electronic information is not lost or destroyed. In order to do that, an attorney must be competent to evaluate the nature of the potential threat to client electronic files and to evaluate and deploy appropriate computer hardware and software to accomplish that end. An attorney who lacks or cannot reasonably obtain that competence is ethically required to retain an expert consultant who does have such competence.

An Arizona attorney may be hired as an associate to operate the Arizona office of an out-of-state law firm as long as:  (1) the associate has a bona fide employment relationship with the firm; (2) the Arizona attorney must be fully responsible for the Arizona office, including the supervision of partners in Arizona who are not yet admitted in Arizona (and limiting their practices to federal law); and (3) the firm must clearly indicate on all communications and letterhead where each of the attorneys is admitted and that the Arizona associate is the managing associate for the Arizona office. [ERs 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 7.1, 7.5]

Blanket use of peremptory challenges against a particular judge impermissible if purposes is to influence judge's decision; notices should be filed based on case-be-case review.

Ethical obligations of Public Defender and individual attorneys in his office who are carrying unduly high annual caseloads.