In re Petrie
Arizona Supreme Court
742 P.2d 796 (1987)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1981, Gregory and Barbara Pietz (plaintiffs) sought Robert Alexander Petrie’s (defendant) legal advice to adopt a child. Petrie stated that he would represent the Pietzes if they found a baby for adoption. In 1983, on behalf of the Pietzes, a friend called Petrie to inform him that she knew of a child available for the Pietzes to adopt. After the call, Petrie met with the natural mother and sent the Pietzes a letter to see whether they were interested. The Pietzes replied that they were hopeful the adoption would work out and inquired about the logistics. After reading the letter, Petrie received a call from the Buckmasters, who stated they were interested in adopting a child. Petrie then suggested to the natural mother that she place the child with the Buckmasters. The birth mother agreed. The Pietzes filed a complaint against Petrie with the state bar. The local administrative committee ordered a disciplinary hearing. At the hearing, Petrie testified that he believed that the birth mother was his sole client and that he took the Pietzes’ logistical inquiries to mean they were equivocal about the adoption. The committee recommended censure. The disciplinary commission then reviewed the case and recommended suspension. Petrie objected, and the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holohan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.