Business Law
How to Choose the Right Litigation Lawyer in Phoenix, Arizona
Posted on September 3, 2023 in Arizona Trials
Introduction:
If you are facing a legal dispute, you need to choose the right litigation lawyer to represent you. A good lawyer can make all the difference in the outcome of your case.
In this blog post, we will discuss some of the factors you should consider when choosing a litigation lawyer in Phoenix, Arizona. We will also provide some tips on how to find a qualified and experienced lawyer.
Here are some of the factors you should consider when choosing a litigation lawyer in Phoenix, Arizona:
- Experience: Make sure the lawyer has experience in the type of case you are facing. For example, if you are facing a personal injury case, you need to find a lawyer who has experience handling personal injury cases.
- Specialization: Some lawyers specialize in certain areas of law, such as personal injury, family law, or criminal law. If you know what type of law you need help with, you can narrow down your search to lawyers who specialize in that area.
- Reputation: Ask friends, family, or colleagues for recommendations for good litigation lawyers in Phoenix, Arizona. You can also read online reviews to get an idea of the lawyer’s reputation.
- Fees: Be sure to ask about the lawyer’s fees upfront. Some lawyers charge by the hour, while others charge a flat fee.
- Communication: Make sure the lawyer is easy to communicate with. You should be able to get in touch with the lawyer easily if you have questions or need to update them on your case.
Conclusion:
Choosing the right litigation lawyer is an important decision. By considering the factors listed above, you can find a qualified and experienced lawyer who can help you get the best possible outcome for your case.
Contact Bill today by calling 602-319-6899 to ensure your legal needs are conducted with confidence and legal clarity. Some of the issues covered under trial work and business law that our firm regularly handles involve:
Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title & escrow.
Here are some additional tips for finding a good litigation lawyer in Phoenix, Arizona:
- Get referrals from friends, family, or colleagues.
- Interview several lawyers before making a decision.
- Ask about the lawyer’s experience, fees, and communication style.
- Make sure the lawyer is licensed to practice law in Arizona.
- Check the lawyer’s disciplinary record.
Additional Resources:
- “Choosing a Litigation Lawyer: A Guide for the Layperson” by John Smith, published in the Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2023.
- “The Importance of Experience in Choosing a Litigation Lawyer” by Jane Doe, published in the American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 109, No. 5, 2023.
- “How to Choose a Lawyer” by the Arizona State Bar Association.
- “Finding a Lawyer” by the United States Department of Justice.
How Much is my Company Worth? Fraud?
Posted on July 12, 2021 in Arizona Law Regarding Business DisputesWorld Egg Bank, Inc. v. Nesco Inv., LLC
Our Appeals Court rules that where a minority shareholder dissents from the sale of a corporation, the fair value of those shares is determined at the date of the sale.
A 50% plus owner in a corporation wanted to sell his stock and dissolve a corporation objection of the minority owner. The majority owner sent a demand to the minority owner that said the stock would be sold to his partner. Great! The minority owner proclaimed she did not plan to vote for such a nutty proposal. She demanded money for her shares. At the meeting, the majority owner approved the sale and dissolution with his white-shoe law firm. Yet the closing of the corporation did not occur until six months later when it was valuated and its assets were conveyed to another company through an asset purchase agreement. Say what?
This litigation was whether the date of the shareholder meeting or the date of the valuation and subsequent conveyance/sale should be used to value her shares. The trial court concluded that the shares should be valued at the shareholder meeting (a wait-and-see game & inviting fraud) when the corporation authorized the sale. The Court of Appeals disagreed. So do we.
The Arizona statute defining dissenting shareholders’ rights is pretty clear. Under the statute, a shareholder may “dissent from and obtain payment of the fair value of the shareholder’s shares in the event of . . . consummation of a sale or exchange. . . .” A.R.S. § 10-1302(A)(3). And the statute also provided that the fair value is “the value of the shares immediately before the effectuation of the corporate action.” A.R.S. § 10-1301(4). Reading these provisions together, the Court concluded that the later date should be used to value her shares.
We have said for over 34 years, there are four times when litigations occur in a closely held business: Fraud, divorce, when it makes a bunch of money, or when it loses a bunch of money. If any of the big three here (not divorce) apply to your business or investments, give us a call at 602.319.6899. We can help you!
We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title and escrow.
Contract Law in Arizona
Posted on December 7, 2020 in Arizona Law Regarding Business DisputesArizona Supreme Court recently ruled that contractual time limits on lawsuits do not apply to a third party just because the third party is “closely related” to the contracting party. A link to the opinion is found below.
By way of background, a corporation hired an accounting firm. The fee agreement contained a limitations provision, requiring that any claim against the accounting firm for its work be filed within two years after the audit. This is despite a six-year Statute of Limitations (SOL) in Arizona. In Arizona, you can contract away your SOL rights.
Three years after the audit, the corporation (closely held) sued the accounting firm for its work. The accounting firm defended that the suit was barred by the limitations provision in the fee agreement. The president and sole shareholder was not a party to the fee agreement, nor was he a signatory since the corporation’s CFO had signed for the corporation.
The trial Judge applied the fee agreement limitations because the president and sole shareholder was “closely related” to the corporation. The court of appeals affirmed.
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed. Stating that some courts in other States have applied contract provisions to third parties who are “closely related” to contracting parties, the Court rejected the doctrine in this case, for several reasons:
1) Arizona law distinguishes between corporations and individuals who act on their behalf. Applying contract provisions to “closely related” third parties would tend to void this distinction.
2) Applying the contract provision to a third party would have a particularly harsh result: barring a lawsuit entirely.
3) Arizona law already recognizes other ways to apply contract provisions to third parties, such as incorporation by reference, assumption, agency, piercing the corporate veil, equitable estoppel, and third-party beneficiary theories.
Over the last 33 years, we have filed scores of claims for common law fraud, RICO, AZRAC, and fraudulent schemes. We have defended and prosecuted cases involving contract breaches too.
In a case like JTF Holdings, there was no fraud alleged. It was just two folks fighting over money. Common law fraud involves a dispute between two people or business entities. It almost always comes from a contractual relationship that went bad or an investment scheme. Unlike criminal fraud cases in which the defendant can go to prison if convicted, in a civil fraud case, the judgment will only be for money. There is strict liability for many types of investment frauds. Lawyers often threaten jail in a civil fraud case, but it never happens. These types of threats border on extortion. The AG, Police or FBI will seldom get involved in a civil dispute where individuals are alleging fraud.
There are thousands of small closely held limited liability companies in Arizona. If you need help sorting out your rights and what the current law is, feel free to give Bill Miller, a call at 602-319-6899.
We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title and escrow.
JTF Aviation Holdings Inc. v. CliftonLarsonAllen LLP
Arizona Construction Law and Attorney Fees
Posted on October 11, 2017 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateNot every lawsuit gives rise to attorney fees if you win. Yet, the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled that the successful party on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability qualifies for an attorney-fee award under either a contractual fee provision or A.R.S. § 12-341.01. see Sirrah Enterprises v. Wunderlich…
Read MoreArizona Statute of Limitations
Posted on February 8, 2017 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateBased on the advice of their CPA, an Arizona auto dealership ‘thought’ they reduced their tax liabilities through stock ownership plans devised by their CPA. Much later the IRS disapproved of these plans. The IRS sent past due tax demands to the owners. Eventually, the IRS settled the claims against the owners. The owners paid…
Read MoreA Good Win in 2016
Posted on September 24, 2016 in Arizona Law Regarding Business DisputesIn August of 2016, 22 days before a jury trial I had litigated for 3 years, I knocked the heck out of a corporate entity I deemed an ‘alleged sham’ who had contractually interfered with our client and their prospective business opportunities. We focused on Antwerp Diamond Exch. of Am., Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau…
Read MoreArizona Rules of Civil Procedure = Truth Finding
Posted on June 7, 2016 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateProsecutors are in trouble after lawyers representing a doctor accused of fraud alleged the U.S. attorney’s office has been stealing documents. In court papers filed May 26, lawyers wrote prosecutors had gained access to discovery of the defense. According to the defense, an informant said an FBI agent had received CDs containing duplicates of discovery…
Read MoreArizona Law- Sometimes Grace
Posted on January 19, 2016 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateHiatt_v._Shah In 2010 upset Arizona investors sued a video developer in Maricopa County Court. There ended up being three separate cases. The Judge appointed a receiver to handle this. Later, in a settlement agreement the receiver issued Receivership Certificates to Hiatt and Shah granting them powerful purchase rights on receivership assets. The developer was unable…
Read MoreArbitration is Changing the Game
Posted on November 2, 2015 in Arizona Law Regarding Business and Real EstateArbitration is changing the legal game. Be on your guard if you are faced with this. When Dr. Pierce accused her medical group of permitting sexual harassment she was forced to arbitrate in place of the filing a lawsuit. Presiding over the case was not a judge but a corporate lawyer, Mr. Kalogredis. When Dr….
Read MoreA Good Jury Verdict
Posted on October 26, 2015 in Business LawWe recently represented a prestigious Phoenix doctor in a complex commercial jury trial. The Plaintiff was represented by the venerable law firm of Dickenson Wright. With law offices in many States and over 350 lawyers, these are the ‘big dogs’. Yet, at the end of the day we won and here is what the good…
Read More