Fieger’s Arizona censure

Yet another ethical run-in for bad boy Michigan lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, aside from all the ones we’ve told you about already including his recent campaign finance indictment: the Arizona Supreme Court has censured Fieger for holding himself out on letterhead as a member of the Arizona bar, and undertaking a matter to be tried in […]

Yet another ethical run-in for bad boy Michigan lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, aside from all the ones we’ve told you about already including his recent campaign finance indictment: the Arizona Supreme Court has censured Fieger for holding himself out on letterhead as a member of the Arizona bar, and undertaking a matter to be tried in an Arizona court, even though he was under suspension at the time. The September issue of Arizona Attorney carries the following in its “Lawyer Regulation: Sanctioned Attorneys” column:

GEOFFREY N. FIEGER
Bar No.006227; File No.04-1579
Supreme Court No.SB-07-0048-D

By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated Mar. 22, 2007, Geoffrey N. Fieger, 19390 W. Ten Mile Rd., Southfield, MI 48075, a suspended member of the State Bar, was censured and assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.

Mr. Fieger undertook representation in a matter to be tried in Maricopa County Superior Court despite the fact that he was suspended. Mr. Fieger presented to clients and entered into a fee agreement printed on his firm’s stationery in which the letterhead stated “Michigan, Florida and Arizona Bar” directly under his name, thereby improperly holding himself out as a lawyer entitled to practice in Arizona. The fee agreement did not contain any reference to his Arizona suspension.

One aggravating factor was found: substantial experience in the practice of law. Three mitigating factors were found: absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings and character or reputation.

Mr. Fieger violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT. ER 8.4(d), and Rule 31(b), ARIZ.R.S.CT.

Our Arizona correspondent says he has only one comment to make, echoing the phrase near the very end of the summary: “character or reputation”?

P.S. The relevant Arizona proceedings are available in PDF form here, here, and here, and the state of Michigan’s contribution to the matter, also PDF, is here.

Comments are closed.