With the recent elimination of fee-sharing prohibition, a fee-financing arrangement in which a lender will retain a portion of the lawyer’s fees is permissible. To pass along the cost of the fees retained by the lender to the client, the lawyer must disclose the charge’s nature and details. The lawyer must also reveal alternative payment options and the merits and drawbacks of those alternatives. At all times, the lawyer’s fee must remain reasonable. Provided the lawyer obtains the client’s informed consent, the lawyer may disclose information necessary to facilitate a lender’s fee-financing arrangement. The lawyer must inform the client of the full range of consequences presented by the disclosure of client-related information to a third party, including the possible waiver of attorney-client privilege if applicable. The lawyer has a continuing obligation to ensure that information disclosed to a lender is not misused or disclosed to unauthorized individuals. Fee-financing arrangements raise several potential conflicts of interest. The lawyer must acquire the client’s informed consent, confirmed in writing, to waive these conflicts if a significant risk of them occurring is present. In the consumer bankruptcy context, the lawyer’s duty of candor requires disclosure of all relevant details concerning a fee-financing arrangement to the bankruptcy court.

The conflict-of-interest rules prohibit a defense attorney from advising a criminal defendant to waive the defendant’s right to raise that attorney’s ineffective assistance of counsel. The ethical rules also prohibit a prosecutor from insisting that a defendant waive the right to raise ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct claims. Opinion 95-08 is accordingly withdrawn.

A lawyer holding property in which both the client and a third person have an “interest” must account for the property, pay undisputed sums to the proper party, and abide resolution of any disputes.  Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (“ERs”) 1.15(d), (e).  ER 1.15(d) requires a lawyer with knowledge of claims against the client to protect those with an “interest” in funds in the lawyer’s control.  An “interest” is a matured legal or equitable claim.  The ethical rules do not require a claimant’s lawyer to search public records or other sources for medical liens or claims in order to acquire knowledge of an “interest.”

A claimant's attorney may not ethically enter into any settlement agreement that would require the attorney to indemnify or hold the Releasee harmless from any lien claims against the settlement proceeds.

An attorney may ethically advise a client that the client may tape record a telephone conversation in which one party to the conversation has not given consent to its recording, if the attorney concludes that such taping is not prohibited by federal or state law. [ERs 1.2(d), 1.4(b), 2.1]

A lawyer who has a client that is considering entering into a cooperation agreement with a law enforcement agency has an ethical obligation to determine all relevant facts that should be weighed in such a decision, including the availability of protection for the client, and must advise the client, candidly, of the risks associated with the client's proposed cooperation.  [ERs 1.1, 1.4, 2.1]

An attorney may draft a revocable living trust with a pour-over will for a client and be named as trustee and/or personal representative. Such an arrangement does not constitute a gift under ER 1.8, but the lawyer may not recover trustee fees in addition to legal fees for the same work.  The lawyer must be able to exercise independent professional judgment when acting as both trustee and counsel to the estate. [ERs 1.8, 2.1]

Lawyer may employ a non-testifying trial consultant, and pay him a prearranged bonus fee of if the case settles or is won at trial, subject to certain guidelines.

Possible conflict or interference with professional judgment when director or public defender agency follows directions of governing body which funds the agency.

Attorney may advise client arrested for DWI to refuse to submit to chemical tests, the preferable course, however, is to advise client of consequences for such conduct.

Lawyer acquiescing in or recommending to a client a contingent fee contract with medical consulting service for expert testimony is improper.

Attorney advising client arrested for DWI to refuse to submit to blood, breath or urine tests under A.R.S. § 28-691 (A).