by Gary Smith on January 26, 2012
Governor Brewer lost her Federal suit to stop Prop 203, and she had decided not to appeal. In turn, this has prompted DHS to lift its moratorium on accepting dispensary applications.
Per DHS Director, Will Humble’s blog, DHS is expecting to start accepting dispensary applications in April. However, due to a significant victory in the Compassion First v. Arizona case, the application qualifications and rules that DHS published last year are going to change significantly. Per Director Humble, DHS is working at fever pace to amend the regulations to conform to the Superior Court ruling.
Amongst the changes coming to the dispensary application process include:
- Removal of the 3 year Arizona residency requirement;
- Removal of the requirement that an applicant never filed for bankruptcy (personal or corporate);
- Removal of the requirement that the applicant have submitted their past 3 year Arizona tax returns;
- Removal of the requirement that the applicant be current on child support.
You can read Director Humble’s blog here. The blog also has a link to the Compassion First v. Arizona decision.
As a result of the Compassion First v. Arizona decision, there are two issues of which you need to be aware. First, we don’t know if any of the parties to the Compassion First v. Arizona case intend to appeal. If they do, it may result in a further delay to DHS accepting applications and/or may result in post-application lawsuits pitting the non-winners of dispensary certificates against the winners and DHS. Second, the removal of the residency requirements means no hometown advantage and a probable influx of out-of-state players vying for dispensaries. This may also result in DHS abolishing or altering its plans to hold a lottery to award certificates in CHAAS that produce multiple qualified applicants.
Smith & Craven is keeping its finger on the pulse of these issues and remains available to assist you and your referrals with all stages of the application process, including real estate, zoning, corporate formality, and regulatory compliance. We also provide litigation services, appeals, and can provide on-going legal counseling for dispensaries and their owners.
by Gary Smith on December 29, 2011
Smith & Craven is proud to announce that founding partner, Gary Michael Smith, was today awarded an AV rating by Martindale Hubbell.
WHAT ARE MARTINDALE-HUBBELL® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™?
The Martindale-Hubbell® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™ are an objective indicator of a lawyer’s high ethical standards and professional ability, generated from evaluations of lawyers by other members of the bar and the judiciary in the United States and Canada. The first review to establish a lawyer’s rating usually occurs three years after his/her first admission to the bar.
LexisNexis facilitates secure online Martindale-Hubbell® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™ surveys of lawyers across multiple jurisdictions and geographic locations, in similar areas of practice as the lawyer being rated. Reviewers are asked to assess their colleagues’ general ethical standards and legal ability in a specific area of practice. The ratings appear in all formats of the Martindale-Hubbell® Law Directory, in the online listings on martindale.com, Lawyers.comSM, on the LexisNexis services, on LN mobile apps. Your Martindale-Hubbell® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™ can also be displayed on your LinkedIn® profile via the LinkedIn® Lawyers Ratings Application.
The Ratings Explanation
Martindale-Hubbell® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™ reflect a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating. A threshold number of responses is required to achieve a rating.
The General Ethical Standards rating denotes adherence to professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional responsibilities. Those lawyers who meet the “Very High” criteria of General Ethical Standards can proceed to the next step in the ratings process – Legal Ability.
Legal Ability ratings are based on performance in five key areas, rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). These areas are:
- Legal Knowledge – Lawyer’s familiarity with the laws governing his/her specific area of practice(s)
- Analytical Capabilities – Lawyer’s creativity in analyzing legal issues and applying technical knowledge
- Judgment – Lawyer’s demonstration of the salient factors that drive the outcome of a given case or issue.
- Communication Ability – Lawyer’s capability to communicate persuasively and credibly
- Legal Experience – Lawyer’s degree of experience in his/her specific area of practice(s)
The numeric ratings range may coincide with the appropriate Certification Mark:
- AV Preeminent (4.5-5.0)- AV Preeminent is a significant rating accomplishment – a testament to the fact that a lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence.
- BV Distinguished (3.0-4.4) – BV Distinguished is an excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. A widely respected mark of achievement, it differentiates a lawyer from his or her competition.
- Rated (1.0-2.9) – The Peer Review Rated designation demonstrates that the lawyer has met the very high criteria of General Ethical Standing.