Reasonably promptly. If possible, it is generally best to conclude a case before reporting, unless the associated harm is too grave or otherwise presents urgency. Sometimes you may need to first address an attorney’s ethical misconduct with the assigned judicial officer during the representation, for example, if opposing counsel is directly contacting your client without your consent.

Although lawyers have a duty to report the serious misconduct of other lawyers, the duty to self-report arises pursuant to other rules and is limited to 1) convictions for felonies and serious misdemeanors and 2) attorney discipline in another state. That said, if you are concerned about how to handle your own misconduct or possible malpractice, consider consulting counsel about the prudence of any self-report.

If you are reasonably confident that the misconduct has been adequately reported, there is no need to make a duplicative report. Ariz. Ethics Op. 90-13 n. 8. However, consider that your additional report may be helpful if you have a different perspective about harm caused by the misconduct or additional facts.

Probably not. The ER limits the reporting obligation to substantial or serious misconduct that causes you significant concern about the lawyer’s honesty or fitness. However, consider that a borderline violation may be part of a pattern of misconduct. It’s also reasonable to err on the side of reporting if there is a victim of the attorney’s misconduct who is otherwise unlikely to discover the offense. Keep in mind that even if you’re not mandated by ER 8.3, you may still make a discretionary report.

Not if your report will involve disclosure of client information protected by ER 1.6. However, you should encourage your client to allow your report if it will not substantially prejudice the client’s interests. Additionally, consider whether it’s possible to make the report without disclosing confidential client information.

Yes, if the misconduct raises a substantial question about the lawyer’s honesty or fitness.

The requirement applies to all lawyers. Those disbarred are no longer lawyers but may be subject to investigation for unauthorized practice of law.

This is not required by ER 8.3 but the best practice is to report suspected UPL for protection of the public, after obtaining the necessary client consent to the disclosure of any confidential information.

Yes, if it raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness. However, the Bar does not investigate judges. Allegations of misconduct against Arizona judges should be made to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Although Lawyer Regulation does periodically receive and investigate anonymous reports, an anonymous report will not likely satisfy your ER 8.3 mandatory reporting duty.

Lawyer Regulation’s Intake Department will pre-screen the charge to determine whether it may be quickly and informally resolved or whether it should be forwarded to Bar Counsel for further investigation. Many charges are closed at the intake level, with only those that suggest more serious misconduct advancing for a formal screening investigation. Keep in mind that at any stage, you may be required to provide further information to Bar Counsel.

No, this is unethical, as well as likely unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Ariz. Ethics Op. 90-06.

The litigation privilege applies to the contents of a bar charge. Goldman v. Sahl, 248 Ariz. 512 (App. 2020); Drummond v. Stahl, 127 Ariz. 122 (App. 1980).

Yes, and sometimes civilly discussing the situation with the other lawyer may further inform your ER 8.3 analysis. However, avoid any appearance that you are threatening a bar complaint for tactical or retaliatory reasons, which is unethical. Ariz. Ethics Op. 90-13 n. 17; ABA Op. 94-383.

Beginning January 1, 2021, lawyers must also report Alternate Business Structures (ABS) and legal paraprofessionals (LP) whose acts raise a substantial question as to compliance with the applicable codes of conduct outlined in the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration (ACJA).