Retention as Expert in Ethics and
Professional Responsibility

David Dodge has been retained in numerous legal proceedings as an expert in a variety of issues pertaining to legal ethics and professional responsibility.

Barton Pyper, PLLC v. Marogy, Case No. CV2016-007262, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff lawyer in action to determine appropriate fee after lawyer was discharged by client in pending contingent fee matter. Issues involved include reasonableness of fee under ER 1.5(a) and whether lawyer was in violation of the anti-solicitation rules of ER 7.3.

AOW Management LLC v. Scythian Solutions, LLC et al., Case No. CV2016-013483, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Defendant-Cross-Claimant in a contractual dispute involving a lawyer who entered into a business relationship with his client. Issues involve whether lawyer complied with the provisions of ER 1.8(a), whether he assisted his client in illegal acts in violation of ER 1.2(d), and whether he properly advised his client about the risks he was advising his client to take in accordance with ERs 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4.

Sassoon v. Goldstein & Scopellite, PC et al., Case No. C20162869, Superior Court of Arizona, Pima County. Expert witness for Plaintiff against her former lawyers for recovery of what is claimed to be unreasonable fee. Issues involve ER 1.5(a), whether client was properly advised of the value of her case in compliance with ERs 1.1 and 1.4, and whether there was an accord and satisfaction of client’s claims in accordance with provisions of ER 1.8(h).

N.E.P. Holding LLC v. Kathryne Ward et al., Case No. CV2015-011586, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert for Plaintiff and former client of lawyer alleging breaches of fiduciary duties when lawyer continued representations of Plaintiff and other jointly represented clients after their interests came into conflict. Issues involve ERs 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8(b) and the effect they had on her fiduciary obligations to the former client after the conflicts were or should have been discovered.

Aspen Biotech Corporation et al. v. Jason K. Wakefield et al., Case No. CV2015-013984, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Defendant-Cross-claimant client in action against lawyer who entered into a business venture with him. Issues involve whether a lawyer-client relationship had been formed, whether lawyer complied with the provisions of ER 1.8(a), and whether lawyer attempted to have client release him from malpractice claims in violation of ER 1.8(h).

Weiss & Moy PC v. Todd K. Malan, Case No. CV2014-011877, Superior Court of Arizona,  Maricopa County. Expert witness for Defendant in suit for fees by lawyer against former client. Case involved issue of whether fees charged were reasonable under ER 1.5.

Futter v. Tapestry on Central Condominium Association, Case No. SC122244, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. Expert witness for Defendant in suit for fees on whether Plaintiff lawyer, licensed in California, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when she performed tasks for Defendant in Arizona without being licensed in Arizona. Matter involved issues concerning ERs 1.8(a), 5.5 and 5.7.

Cohen Kennedy Dowd & Quigley, PC v. World Wide Wheat, LLC, Sheldon E. and Barbara Richardson, Case No. 2014-01189, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for the Defendants in an action by a law firm to recover unpaid fees against a former client. The issues involve whether a modification of a fee agreement incorporating the use of a litigation financing provider complied with the lawyers’ fiduciary responsibilities to their clients. Case involves applicability of ERs 1.4(a)(1), 1.5, 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(a) and 2.1.

PRI ONE, LLC v. J2H2 LLC et al., Case No. 2010-009712, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for the Third-Party Plaintiff against lawyer, claiming lawyer-client relationship with same lawyer representing the other side in a guaranty/indemnification agreement. Case involved issues concerning ERs 1.2(d) and 1.7.

Peak View III Lender LLC v. Ianitelli Marcolini, PC, et al., Case No. CV 2012-004342, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for the Plaintiff in a lawsuit brought against a lawyer and his firm by client. Issues include whether lawyer breached duty of diligent representation by failing to record a judgment and impairing client’s ability to recover on it. Case involved applicability of ERs 1.1, 1.2 1.3 and 1.4.

Barbuscia etc. v. Pazmino et al, Case No. CV2014-012679, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Defendant lawyer on issue as to whether an attorney-client relationship had been formed between lawyer and client of a financial planner who used lawyer’s estate planning forms. Case involved ER 1.1 issues.

Dembecki v. Dembecki et al, Case No. CV 2012-018812, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Defendant lawyer on issue as to whether an attorney-client relationship had been formed between lawyer and potential client who died before lawyer had a chance to meet with her to discuss facts of case, scope of representation and fee arrangements. Case involved ER 1.7 issues.

Equity Partners Group LLC v. Lucid Entertainment et al., Case No. CV 2014-007219, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff in defense against a post-hearing fee application by Defendants seeking amounts which are alleged to be unreasonable. Case involved applicability of ER 1.5.

Western Competitive Solutions, Inc. et al v. Eide Bailly LLP et al., Case No. CV 2012-050944, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Defendants on issue of whether General Counsel for Plaintiffs was partially responsible for failing to discover and report illegal acts by corporate president. Case involved applicability of ERs 1.1, 1.3, 1.7 and 1.13.

Young v. Banner Health et al., Case No. CV 2014-009951, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff in defense of a motion to disqualify filed by Defendants alleging that counsel had previously represented Defendants in other matters and had “playbook” knowledge which could be used to Defendants’ disadvantage. Case involved applicability of ERs 1.6 and 1.9.

Estate of Edward L. Bews etc. v. Terry C. Copple et al., Case No. CV-13-7112, District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, Idaho.  Expert witness for Defendant lawyer being sued for allegedly taking advantage of a client under a disability. Issues involved Idaho’s equivalent of Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7,
1.8(a), 1.9, 1.14, and 3.3.

Benito Prieto Toni v. Snell & Wilmer LLP, Case No. CV 2012-006953, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff against former counsel for disgorgement of allegedly excessive fee charged in dispute between shareholders of close corporation. Testified on the applicability of ER 1.5(a).

Dominguez et al. v. Wolf, Case No. CV 2012-011408, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought against lawyer by the client. Primary issue was whether lawyer breached fiduciary duty to client by modifying, after the case started, a contingent fee agreement so the lawyer could charge an additional hourly rate for the remainder of the case. Case involved applicability of ERs 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8(a).

Klarkowski et al.v. DeFine et al., Case No. CV 2013-054397, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought against lawyer by the client. Primary issue was whether lawyer complied with ER 1.8(a) when he entered into a business relationship with his client.

Fornara v. Keller Rohrback PLC et al., Case No. CV 2012- 009208, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff in a lawsuit brought against lawyer by the client. Issue was whether lawyer violated ER 1.7(a)(2) when he drafted a licensing agreement for parties, both of whom were clients, without getting informed consents to the potential conflict of interest.

F.C., by and through his natural mother, Rosa Maria Corrales et al. v. Impastato, Case No. CV 11-00287-PHX-ROS, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Expert opinion given in matter where Defendant tried to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel when it became necessary for Plaintiff to cross-examine a witness for Defendant who was a former client in an unrelated matter. Issues included whether the previous case was the “same or substantially related matter” under ER 1.9.

Portnoy v. Onsager et al., Case No. CV 2011-053602, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for the Plaintiff in a lawsuit against lawyer brought by client. Primary issue is whether lawyer violated client’s instructions by not including a provision specifically requested by client concerning the distribution provisions of an operating agreement drafted by the lawyer. Testified on the applicability of ERs 1.2 and 1.4.

Doane v. Pyper et al., Case No. CV2012-051315, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by a client against his lawyer. Issues included whether case was investigated properly and whether lawyer terminated representation appropriately. Cased involved the applicability of Arizona’s version of Model Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 1.16.

Roach v. Ohlhausen et al., Case No. 76-194 00200 nolg (American Arbitration Association 2011). Expert witness for Plaintiff in a fee arbitration matter. Testified on the application of ER 1.5(a) to a bonus contingent fee agreement

Thomas v. Vining, Case No. CV 99-08898, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff in legal malpractice case against lawyer. Testified concerning considerations in limited scope representation.

Scott Patrick, Inc. v. Grant E. Gist et al., Case No. CV 2006 015007, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for movant on motion to disqualify opposing counsel. Testified on applicability of Arizona's version of Model Rules 1.6 and 1.7.

Maricopa Ready Mix, LLC v. David L. Hudder et al., Case No. CV 2003 005661, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff in legal malpractice case against lawyer and law firm. Testified on the applicability of Arizona's version of Model Rules 1.2(d), 1.6, 1.13 and 4.1.

Bellah & Harrian PLLC v. Von Pahlen-Fedoroff, Case No. CV 2005 012096, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness in suit between lawyer and former law firm over division of fees on pending contingent fee cases. Issue was applicability of Arizona's version of Model Rules 1.5, 1.15 and 5.6.

Greer v. Vogel et al., Case No. CV 2004 003619, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for Plaintiff against real estate broker. Issue was applicability of Arizona's version of Model Rules 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8(b).

George v. Whetstine et al., Case No. C 2003 3685, Superior Court of Arizona, Pima County. Expert witness for Plaintiff in case by trust beneficiary against trustee and lawyer for the trust. Issue was applicability of Arizona's version of Model Rules 1.4 and 1.7 and derivative fiduciary duties of lawyers representing trustees.

Cooper v. Favour, Weaver, Moore, Wilhelmsen & Schuyler, P.A., Case No. CIV 95 2583 PCT RCB, United States District Court, District of Arizona. Expert witness for Plaintiff in case by client against lawyer. Case involved the applicability of Arizona's version of Model Rules 1.3 and 1.7.

Richards et al. v. Hartman et al., Case No. 03-01781A, First Judicial District Court of Nevada (Carson City). Expert witness for Defendant lawyer. Issue was whether lawyer undertook representation of Plaintiff in addition to becoming his business partner.

Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System v. Causey, Case No. CV 2008-003949, Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. Expert witness for Plaintiff. Issue was whether Defendant breached duty to client by taking instructions from third party without informing client of consequences.

Anderson v. Drake et al., Case No. CV2007-019591, Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. Expert witness for Counter-defendant lawyer. Case involved issues of whether the lawyer was acting as counsel and whether his actions violated ER 1.8(a).

Shoemake/Griffith-Estencio de Prescott et al. v. Larry S. Shoemake et al., No. CV 2008-1726, Superior Court of Yavapai County, Arizona. Expert witness for Plaintiff. Case involved issues of whether the lawyer for an organization has duties under ER 1.13 toward the organization’s constituents.

Mallet v. Maricopa County Superior Court et al., No. CV 2010-011840, Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. Expert witness for Defendant. Case involved the reasonableness of the fee charged in representing a person under the care of the Probate Court.

In re Brigg’s, No. 08-1199, before a Hearing officer of the Superior Court of Arizona. Expert witness for the State Bar of Arizona in a disciplinary matter. Case involved the duties of a lawyer participating in the sale of securities to a client when the lawyer has an interest in the issuer.

Sacred Heart Hospice, LLC. v. McWilliams et al., Case No. CV 2009-038119, Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. Expert witness for Defendant. Case involved issues of professionalism and the degree of zealous behavior allowed in the representation of a client.

Opalinski-Levy etc. v. Barrett, No. CV 20085-004245, Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. Expert witness for Counter-defendant lawyer. I testified on issues of whether the lawyer was subject to the ethical rules and, if so, whether there was a violation of ER 1.8(a).

MJG Enterprises, Inc. v. Callahan et al., No. CV 2009-020325, Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. Expert witness for Defendant. Case involved issues of whether the lawyer was acting as counsel for the plaintiff and, if so, what ethical duties were implicated.

Clarke Law Firm, PLC v. Mohnach Payne Inc. etc., No. CV 2009-030194, Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. Expert witness for Counter claimant. Cased involved whether the lawyer violated competency and diligence standards in the representation of clients in a dispute arising after the sale of her clients’ business.