Search below by keyword, phrase or year for Formal Ethics Opinions issued from 1985 to the present. Most opinions older than 1995 are available as Adobe Acrobat .pdf Files. Reading these files requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Refer to .pdf file viewing help for more information.

Counsel are reminded that the Ethical Rules may have changed since an opinion was issued.

Using this form, it is also possible to construct sophisticated queries using the wildcard (*) and other search operators. Refer to the list of search tips for more information.

11-04: Firm Domain Names; Trade Names; Advertising Subject to the requirement that a law firm’s website address not be false or misleading, the mere use of “.org” by a for-profit law firm does not violate the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.  Ariz. Ethics Op. 01-05 is modified accordingly.

11-03: Liens; Safekeeping Client Property; Third-Party Interest in Settlement Funds 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.”

11-02: Internet; Advertising; Referral Service; Fee Sharing A lawyer may ethically participate in an Internet-based group advertising program that limits participation to a single lawyer for each ZIP code from which prospective clients may come, provided that the service fully and accurately discloses its advertising nature and, specifically, that each lawyer has paid to be the sole lawyer listed in a particular ZIP code.  To remain a permissible group advertising program, such a service may do nothing more to match clients with lawyers than to provide inquiring clients with the name and contact information of participating lawyers, without communicating any substantive endorsement. The service will lose the protection afforded by the required disclosures and cross the line that distinguishes permissible advertising from an impermissible for-profit referral service if the required disclosures are difficult to find, read, or understand; are contradicted by other messages on the website; or are made so late in the process that the consumer of legal services is unlikely to read them before contacting participating lawyers.