Shannon, Matter of
| Decision Date | 23 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. SB-92-0001-D,Nos. 88-1932 and 89-0710,SB-92-0001-D,s. 88-1932 and 89-0710 |
| Citation | Shannon, Matter of, 890 P.2d 602, 181 Ariz. 307 (Ariz. 1994) |
| Parties | In the Matter of A Member of the State Bar of Arizona, John Adair SHANNON, Jr., Respondent. Disciplinary Commission |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Prior report: 179 Ariz. 52, 876 P.2d 548.
IT IS ORDERED that the Mandate and Judgment filed October 27, 1994 is modified as follows:
1. Respondent's suspension shall start on June 21, 1994, the date on which the Opinion was filed in this matter, rather than on November 26, 1994.
2. Respondent shall have six months after the date of his reinstatement within which to pay the restitution...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
4 cases
-
Henderson v. Collins, C-1-94-106.
... ... SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge ... This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jerome Henderson's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 4); Respondent's Return of Writ (doc. 12); and ... I, Ex. F). In his direct appeals, Petitioner was represented by attorneys D. Shannon Smith and Timothy A. Smith ... Petitioner appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court ( Id., Ex. G). The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed his ... ...
-
Piatt, Matter of
... ... In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235, 798 P.2d 371, 373 (1990). We have both final authority and responsibility to decide on the appropriate sanction in every bar discipline case. In re Owens, 182 Ariz. 121, 126, 893 P.2d 1284, 1289 (1995); In re Shannon, 179 Ariz. 52, 68, 876 P.2d 548, 564 (1994), modified, 181 Ariz. 307, 890 P.2d 602 (1994). Thus, while we give great deference to the Commission's recommendation, it is our task to decide on the proper sanction required by facts and law, even when it may exceed the Commission's recommendation ... ...
- State v. Hinchey
-
In re Jonah T.
... ... Const. art. 6, § 3. This provision contemplates general management of the conduct of court personnel. See In re Shannon, 179 Ariz. 52, 76, 876 P.2d 548, 572, modified, 181 Ariz. 307, 890 P.2d 602 (1994). "Administrative," within the meaning of this constitutional ... ...
11 books & journal articles
-
1.4:200 DUTY TO COMMUNICATE WITH CLIENT
...is irrelevant, except to the issue of the nature of the sanction to be imposed. In re Shannon, 179 Ariz. 52, 876 P.2d 548, modified, 181 Ariz. 307, 890 P.2d 602 (1994). The issue is simply whether or not the lawyer has kept the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter the l......
-
1.7:210 BASIC PROHIBITION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
...where a lawyer undertakes to represent multiple clients involved in a single matter. In re Shannon, 179 Ariz. 52, 876 P.2d 548, modified, 181 Ariz. 307, 890 P.2d 602 (1994); Sellers v. Super. Ct., 154 Ariz. 281, 742 P.2d 292 (App. 1987). Where there is simultaneous representation of one or ......
-
1.7:270 SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES FOR CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
...Ariz. 24, 951 P.2d 889 (1997); In re Murphy, 188 Ariz. 375, 936 P.2d 1269 (1997); In re Shannon, 179 Ariz. 52, 876 P.2d 548, modified, 181 Ariz. 307, 890 P.2d 602 (1994); In re Soelter, 175 Ariz. 139, 854 P.2d 773 (1993); In re Petrie, 154 Ariz. 295, 742 P.2d 796 (1987); In re Neville, 147 ......
-
3.4:200 UNLAWFUL DESTRUCTION AND CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE
...access to evidence is being improperly obstructed by the attorney's actions. In In re Shannon, 179 Ariz. 52, 876 P.2d 548, modified, 181 Ariz. 307, 890 P.2d 602 (1994), the respondent lawyer had changed draft interrogatory answers that his client had approved, and then submitted them to opp......
Get Started for Free