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.
Flores et al. v. Johnson et al., Case No.CV2018-056382, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. Expert witness for the Plaintiffs alleging that the Defendant lawyers had conflicts of interest while representing the same parties competing to adopt the same children. ERs involved are 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9, 3.2, 3.3 and 8.4(a), (c) and (d).
Provident Law, PLLC v. Gerrie A. Cooley et al., Case No.
CV2018-010150, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County: Expert witness for
Defendant / Counterclaimant former client being sued for unpaid fees. Issues
include whether turnover of lawyers prior to trial resulted in excessive fees
being charged, whether case was managed correctly by managing partner, and
whether lawyer who finally tried the case had enough time to prepare adequately.
Standards of care and conduct questions include compliance with ERs 1.1, 1.3,
1.5(a), 1.16(d) and 5.1(a) and (b).
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. |