In re Neville
Arizona Supreme Court
147 Ariz. 106, 708 P.2d 1297 (1985)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Bly, a real estate broker and experienced investor, had a history of working with Neville (defendant), an attorney, for representation related to Bly’s real estate transactions. Bly proposed a transaction through which Bly would transfer certain properties to a third party. Neville held an option interest in the properties. As compensation, the third party would transfer certain properties to Neville, and Neville would execute a promissory note to Bly. Neville accepted Bly’s proposal without counteroffer and drafted a contract to memorialize the terms of the agreement. The agreement was disadvantageous to Bly, which gave rise to disciplinary proceedings that came under review by the state supreme court. During disciplinary proceedings, Neville asserted that he informed Bly that he was not acting as counsel with respect to the transaction at issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Feldman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
