Ask A Lawyer

Tell Us Your Case Information for Fastest Lawyer Match!

Please include all relevant details from your case including where, when, and who it involves.
Case details that can effectively describe the legal situation while also staying concise generally receive the best responses from lawyers.

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided may not be privileged or confidential.

Ms. Rosemary Stathakis Cook

Rosemary Cook Lawyer

Rosemary Stathakis Cook update listing

Labor Law, General Practice

  • Law School: Arizona State
  • Status: Suspended
  • Licensed: 37 years

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided may not be privileged or confidential.
School Degree Major Graduation
Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University Law School N/A
State / Court Date
Arizona 1981
California N/A

AZ State Lawyer Additional Information: More About: Ms. Rosemary Stathakis Cook, Educated at Arizona State, admitted to practice in 1981, admitted to the State Bar of Arizona October 17, 1981. Professional Liability Insurance: Yes Discipline Date: 10/19/2010 Discipline Activity: Suspension - long term Discipline Detail: Bar No. 006842SB File Nos.: 09-2114, 10-0253, 10-0575, 10-0784, 10-1074, 10-1466, 10-1776, 10-1828, 10-1972, 10-1982, 10-2066, 10-2108, 10-2111, 11-0110, 11-2027, 11-2176, 11-2189PDJ No.: PDJ No. 2011-9088 By judgment and order of the presiding disciplinary judge dated December 15, 2011, Rosemary Stathakis Cook, Phoenix, was suspended for four years, retroactive to October 19, 2010. She was also assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.The four-year suspension was based in part on matters unrelated to the practice of law. Ms. Cook was convicted in three unrelated criminal cases. In one case she was convicted of aggravated assault (while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, Ms. Cook caused an accident that resulted in minor injuries to another driver) and in the other two cases she was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (Ms. Cook had an alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more within two hours of the time of driving while her drivers license or privilege to drive was suspended pursuant to the implied consent law).Regarding the practice of law, Ms. Cook failed to adequately supervise her non-lawyer employees for a period of months while she was incarcerated. As a result, Ms. Cooks non-lawyer employees failed to adequately and promptly communicate with a number of Ms. Cooks clients. Ms. Cook disclosed confidential information to a prospective employee and filed a pleading on a clients behalf three days after the client discharged her from further representation. In addition, Ms. Cook and her non-lawyer employees were unable to locate documents given to her or her staff by a client.In three unrelated District Court cases, Ms. Cook engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In two cases, Ms. Cook was impaired by alcohol when she appeared before magistrate judges at settlement conferences. In one of those cases, she refused to communicate with the magistrate judge and in the other case she interrupted the magistrate judge to ask inappropriate questions.Following her placement on interim suspension, Ms. Cook failed to notify her clients, opposing counsel, and the courts that she had been suspended; failed to withdraw from further representation of at least some of her clients; failed to file a complete and accurate affidavit with the Disciplinary Commission an" the Supreme Court regarding her compliance with the order of interim suspension; failed to close her law office after being suspended on an interim basis; and allowed two non-lawyer employees to manage and operate her law firm.Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offenses, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law.Mitigating factor: personal or emotional problems.Ms. Cook violated Rule 42, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., specifically ER 1.4(a) and/or (b), ER 1.6(a), ER 1.15(a), ER 1.16(a), ER 3.5(d), ER 5.3(a), ER 5.3(b), ER 8.4(b), ER 8.4(d), Rule 41(c), Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., Rule 41(g), Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., and Rule 72, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. (2010 rule).");'>Case: 10-

Service Type:General

Update Date:2015-07-27


19607 N 141St Ave
Sun City West, AZ 85375


Inaccurate Stories and Poor Responses -- The AP's Take on the DHS National Guard Proposal
On February 17, 2017, the Associated Press (AP) misrepresented a draft DHS memorandum that it had obtained on immigration enforcement. In this article, I examine the AP's shoddy reporting and the President's questionable response.
Workplace Rights v. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Blog post on the topic of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the workplace.