Mr Robert E Fee, Attorney
Robert E Fee 
Real Estate, Business & Trade, Construction, Trusts, General Practice, Property & Casualty, Contract, Litigation, Collection, Corporate
- Law Office: Law Office of Robert E Fee
- Tucson Law Firms
- Law School: California Western School of Law 1981
- Status: In Good Standing
- Licensed: 42 years
520-322-0962
- Profile LAWPOINTS™19/ 100LAWPOINTS™ measure the overall completeness of a Lawyer's profile. More complete profiles are ranked higher and help visitors select the right lawyer faster.
We help paid Members build more complete and informative profiles.
LAWPOINTS™ do not measure a Lawyer's reputation.
More Info for Lawyers - No Misconduct Found ✓
- Reviews Pro Bono Cases ✓
- Upgrade to a premium listing
- Update your listing
- LAWYERID™ CWL-981-1024LawyerID™'s identify each individual within Lawyer.com’s directory of 2M global lawyers and help to ensure that the most accurate, up-to-date records are being kept on every lawyer. If you are a practicing lawyer without a LawyerID prominently displayed on your Lawyer.com profile, please call 800-840-0600 to receive one.
Contact Us
Civil Rights Medical Malpractice Criminal Business Mass Torts
3060 N Swan Rd Tucson 85712 USMedical Malpractice
333 N. Wilmot Rd Tucson 85711 USEmployment Business Employee Rights Estate Government Agencies
1011 N 6th Ave Tucson 85705 USCriminal DUI-DWI Felony Misdemeanor
312 S 3rd Ave Tucson 85701 USCriminal White Collar Crime Felony Misdemeanor
1 S. Church Ave Tucson 85701 USImmigration Divorce & Family Law Child Support Criminal
250 N Meyer Ave Tucson 85701 USEstate
1839 East Queen Creek Road Chandler 85286 USDivorce & Family Law
1166 E Warner Road Gilbert 85296 USDivorce & Family Law
1166 E Warner Rd Gilbert 85296 US
introduction
QUESTIONNAIRE
Experience
| Position | Organization | Location | Duration |
|---|
Education
| School | Degree | Major | Graduation |
|---|---|---|---|
| California Western School of Law | Law School | 1981 |
Admission
| State / Court | Date |
|---|---|
| Arizona | 1983 |
Associations
Honors & Awards
Cases
Publications
Office Hours
| Sun. | Mon. | Tue. | Wed. | Thu. | Fri. | Sat. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Verified Credentials
Lawyers with longer memberships tend to have more experience so we use the Membership date to help prioritize lawyer listings on search pages.
| Verified Credentials | Date Verified |
|---|
Above credentials have been verified independently by Lawyer.com.
Learn More
Legal Articles
Peer Endorsements
Additional Info
AZ State Lawyer Additional Information: More About: Mr. Robert E Fee, Educated at California Western, admitted to practice in 1981, admitted to the State Bar of Arizona October 17, 1981. Section Memberships: Business Law, Construction Law, Probate & Trust Law, Real Property, Sole Practitioner/Small Firm Professional Liability Insurance: Yes Discipline Date: 12/19/2005 Discipline Activity: Censure Discipline Detail: Bar No. 007065File Nos. 03-0049Supreme Court No. SB-05-0160-D By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated December 19, 2005, Robert E. Fee, 4501 E. Grant, Tucson, AZ 85712-2616, a member of the State Bar, was censured, placed on probation for six months and ordered to complete the State Bar¡¯s Ethics Enhancement Program. Mr. Fee also was ordered to pay 0 in restitution and assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings of 2.18 together with interest at the legal rate.In a corporate structuring matter, Mr. Fee prepared misleading corporate records, which he submitted to the corporate officers with supporting written legal opinion letters. Two aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses and substantial ex"rience in the practice of law. Three mitigating factors were found: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings and remoteness of prior offenses. Mr. Fee violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., ERs 8.4 (a) and (c).");'>Case: 03-0049, Charges: 1 07/28/95 Censure BY SUPREME COURT ORDER DATED 07/28/95, ROBERT EDWARD FEE AND JOHN MARC MONTIJO WERE CENSURED FOR CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. AS THE BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AROSE OUT OF THE SAME OCCURRENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONSOLIDATED BY THE COURT. THE RESPONDENTS REPRESENTED A CLIENT IN AN ADMITTEDLY WEAK MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION UNDER A 40% CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT. DURING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS, AND AT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, THE DEFENSE OFFERED A STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PROVIDING FOR CASH AND ANNUITIES TO THE PLAINTIFF, AND A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FOR RESPONDENTS' FEES. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE SETTLEMENT JUDGE AGREED THAT SUCH AN OFFER HAD THE EFFECT OF "DRIVING A WEDGE" BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND THEIR CLIENT BY CAUSING FEES TO BECOME A SOURCE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT. THE RESPONDENTS ARGUED THAT THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR FEE WAS AN ISSUE FOR THE TRIAL COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE. THE SETTLEMENT JUDGE INDICATED THAT, IN HIS OPINION, THE CONTINGENT FEE BEING CHARGED BY RESPONDENTS WAS EXCESSIVE. LATE IN THE DAY, THE DEFENSE OFFERED A NEW PROPOSAL WHICH INCREASED THE CASH COMPONENT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S SETTLEMENT. THE OFFERED ATTORNEY'S FEES REMAINED THE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE SETTLEMENT JUDGE, THE OFFER TO THE CLIENT WAS HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUS OFFER BECAUSE OF RESPONDENTS' REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE CLIENT NEEDED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, BETTER HOUSING, SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE SURGERIES. THE RESPONDENTS THEN METPRIVATELY WITH THEIR CLIENT AND PROPOSED THAT SHE PAY THEM ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS' FEES FROM HER SHARE OF THE CASH PROCEEDS. RESPONDENTS CALCULATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WOULD RESULT IN A FEE OF 34% OF THE STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT'S APPROXIMATE VALUE. THE COURT CALCULATED THAT THE FINAL FEE PERCENTAGE WAS HIGHER THAN THAT, BUT STILL SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THE 40% ORIGINALLY AGREED UPON BY THE CLIENT. AFTERREPEATEDLY ADVISING THE CLIENT OF HER RIGHT TO SEEK INDEPENDENT ADVICE AND OBTAINING NUMEROUS ASSURANCES FROM THE CLIENT THAT SHE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE ARRANGEMENT, RESPONDENT FEE PREPARED A HANDWRITTEN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE ADDITIONAL FEE. THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDED A "CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION" WHICH THE HEARING COMMITTEE FOUND WAS FOR THE CLIENT'S PROTECTION AND TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. THE CLIENT SIGNED THIS ADDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT AND RESPONDENTS AND THE CLIENT RETURNED TO THE JUDGE'S CHAMBERS. RESPONDENT FEE THEN ANNOUNCED THAT THEY HAD AGREED "IN PRINCIPLE" TO THE SETTLEMENT. HOWEVER, WHEN THE SETTLEMENT JUDGE REPEATED THE TERMS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, NOBODY DISCLOSED THE EXISTENCE OF THE NEWLY-ENACTED FEE AGREEMENT. BOTH THE HEARING COMMITTEE AND THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS, NOT WANTING TO UPSET THE SETTLEMENTAND BELIEVING IT WAS NOT THE SETTLMENT JUDGE'S ROLE TODETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF FEES, PLANNED TO REVEAL THE SEPARATE AGREEMENT TO THE TRIAL JUDGE IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORMAL APPLLICATION SEEKING APPROVAL OF THEIR FEES. HOWEVER, THE SETTLMENT JUDGE LEARNED OF THE NEW AGREEMENT WHEN THE CLIENT TELEPHONED HIM ASKING WHETHER SHE WAS REQUIRED TOCOMPLY WITH IT. THE SETTLEMENT JUDGE REMOVED THE RESPONDENTS FROM THE CASE, APPOINTED PRO BONO COUNSEL, AND INITIATED THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. THE COURT FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATED ER 3.3(a)1, IN THAT THE RESPONDENTS KNOWINGLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SEPARATE FEE AGREEMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT JUDGE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE RESPONDENTS ENGAGED IN "CONDUCT INVOLVING DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT OR MISREPRESENTATION" IN VIOLATION OF ER 8.4 (c). THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT MISGUIDED STRATEGIES BELIEVED TO BE ENDEMIC TO THE BARGAINING PROCESS AND THE LACK OF CLEARLY DEFINED ROLES FOR SETTLEMENT JUDGES MAY COMBINE TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT RIPE FOR SUCH OCCURRENCES. ALSO CONTRIBUTING WERE CIRCUMSTANCES PECULIAR TO THIS CASE, SUCH AS THE SETTLEMENT JUDGE'S ALLOWING DEFENSE COUNSEL TO DRIVE A WEDGE BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR CLIENT, A PRACTICE THE COURT WISHES TO DISCOURAGE. THE RECORD INDICATED THAT THE MODIFICATION WAS FAIR, THAT THE CLIENT UNDERSTOOD IT, AND THAT THE RESPONDENTS THOUGHT THEY WERE NOT OBLIGATED TO DISCLOSE THE ARRANGEMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT JUDGE. NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENTS SHOULD HAVE EITHER DISCLOSED THE COMPLETE ARRANGEMENT OR POLITELY DECLINED ANY DISCUSSION OF FEES. FEAR THAT SUCH A DISCLOSURE MIGHT HAVE JEOPARDIZED THE SETTLEMENT, WHILE UNDERSTANDABLE, DOES NOT EXCUSE RESPONDENTS' LACK OF CANDOR WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE RESPONDENTS' CONDUCT VIOLATED ER3.3(a)1, AND ER 8.4(c). EACH RESPONDENT WAS ORDERED TO PAY THE BAR'S COSTS IN THE AMOUNT AZ State Lawyer Additional Information: Discipline: Censure Discipline Date: 12/19/2005 Professional Liability Insurance: Yes AZ State Lawyer Additional Information: Professional Liability Insurance: Yes AZ State Lawyer Additional Information: Bio: Robert Fee is a sole practitioner in Tucson, Arizona, practicing in the areas of estates and trusts, real property, business litigation and personal injury. Robert received his BS in Finance from the University of Arizona and his JD degree from California Western School of Law. Mr. Fee is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and the Arizona Supreme Court. Prior to entering the practice of law, Mr. Fee served as a Tucson Police Officer, a National Park Ranger, and with the Central Intelligence Agency. Aside from his professional pursuits, Robert is Vice President and General Counsel of the Western Music Association, is a founding Director and General Counsel of Wright Flight, Inc., and currently serves as a Pima County District Fire Chief.
Service Type: Private
Update Date: 2023-05-16
To recommend or link to this lawyer as a trusted attorney, we have provided a list of sample links. Please choose the one that meet your needs.
Want a Premium Customized Photo Badge?
Call Toll Free: 800-620-0900
Image Link 1
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/robert-e-fee.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/3116533i.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 2
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/robert-e-fee.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/3116533p.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 3
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/robert-e-fee.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/3116533f.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 4
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/robert-e-fee.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/3116533v.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Text Link 1
<div id="Lcom" style="width:250px;text-align:center;background-color: #fbaa02;padding:3px;"><a href="http://www.lawyer.com/robert-e-fee.html" style="color: #fff;text-decoration:none;size: 12px;">Lawyer.com Listed: Robert E Fee</a></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Change History
4501 E Grant Rd
Tucson, AZ 85712
