Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600 (2002) Case Brief

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re ALCORN PURPOSE: Alcorn presents an example of attorney conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re ALCORN CAUSE OF ACTION: Disciplinary action against an attorney.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re ALCORN FACTS: Alcorn and Feola defended Dr. Bair in a medical malpractice lawsuit in which the hospital was also a defendant. The judge granted the hospital summary judgment, leaving Bair as the sole defendant at trial. At the end of a ten day jury trial, the judge granted the plaintiffs motion to dismiss with prejudice. Later, the judge discovered that the attorneys had agreed to conduct a sham trial, to bring information about the hospital to the judges attention and to persuade the judge to reverse the summary judgment in favor of the hospital.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re ALCORN ISSUE: Did Alcorn and Feola violate Arizona attorney ethics rules by conducting a trial without disclosing to the trial judge that there was no result expected other than dismissal before the case went to the jury?

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re ALCORN HOLDING: Yes. Respondents violated ER 8.4(c), forbidding conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Accordingly, Respondents were suspended from the practice of law in Arizona for six months.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re ALCORN REASONING: The agreement to conduct a sham trial removed the adversarial element from the proceeding. It wasted the time of the jury, the judge, the attorneys, and others involved. The attorneys misled the judge and their actions caused harm to all involved and to the hospital. The judge decided that suspension, rather than disbarment, was the appropriate sanction because the attorneys were apparently motivated by a desire to further the interest of their client and not by personal gain.