Lawyer’s Profile

  • Ms. Brown operates a general practice firm offering a wide range of legal services. Her resourcefulness and diverse experience are adapted to serving individual client needs.  
  • She has appeared before the city as defense counsel on land compliance matters, in Superior Court representing clients on civil matters, probate, and community property division. She is experienced in domestic and international insurance matters, and settled health care provider, ERISA, Medicaid, and Medicare liens, as well as obtaining cross-border diminution in value settlements.
  • She assists clients on contract matters surrounding repudiation, severance agreements, warranty claims, and continues to evaluate estates leading up to preparation of Wills, Health Care and Financial Powers of Attorney, and other life care planning documents.
  • She advises clients on various business matters, including but not limited to setting up LLCs, drafting operating agreements, amendments to articles, retitling property to LLCs, corporation formation, general partnership agreements, and LLPs.
  • Her practice includes serving as a contracted temporary Administrative Law Judge with the state of Arizona for the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). She also serves as a mediator on special assignment for the OAH.
  • She is an experienced Arbitrator for the Better Business Bureau for more than 10 years hearing autoline/lemon law matters and consumer contract disputes.
  • She has mediated over 150 cases on a variety of legal issues as managed by the Maricopa County Justice Court program to include business contract matters, creditor-debtor, landlord-tenant, and torts. She has also represented clients before the Arizona Association of Realtors. on buy-sell agreements. 
  • For more than ten (10) years, she taught as an adjunct faculty and curriculum writer at Scottsdale Community College teaching business law to include business formation (corporations, LLCs, sole proprietorship, and LLPs), management, marketing, and international business studies. During her tenure, she was the recipient of the 2013 Outstanding Adjunct Faculty recognition conferred by the AFA – Maricopa County Community College District. 
  • She is an experienced Professor teaching political science, justice studies, public safety administration, and communication at Grand Canyon University (GCU), and in June 2011, received recognition for her outstanding service during her tenure.
  • At GCU, she wrote curriculum on topics of International Law and Justice Studies for online graduate programs and was also responsible for drafting business-related curriculum adapted to the 2013 platform conversion for Scottsdale Community College. 
  • She received Honorariums from Pearson/Prentice Hall Publishing for her Market Review contribution on International Business by Cavusgil, Knight and Riesenberger (2008, 2012).
  • Currently she serves on the Executive Council for the International Law Section (ILS) of the Arizona State Bar (2013-2017), and is a member in good standing with the Business Law section serving on the RULLLCA subcommittee since 2015.  
  • She was implemental as co-chair for the World Peace Through Law (WPTL) education programs for the 2012 and 2014 State Bar Convention, and served as WPTL Budget Officer, and continued to serve as Chair for several State Bar Convention programs as an officer and past Chair of ILS.
  • She is a member in good standing with the Scottsdale Bar Association. 
  • In 2010, she was a panelist speaker for the Arizona Association for Conflict Resolution (AACR), and served on the board as Director at Large. Her computer skills helped to implement AACR’s CIS platform conversion.  She continues as a member in good standing with the organization.
  • Ms. Brown strives to add value to the community and volunteers for various Youth Conferences, Mediation Competitions, as well as Mock Trial Competitions.  She also participated in the Volunteer Lawyers Program assisting persons on creditor-debtor matters, and continues to provide pro bono services at the DAV Legal Clinic.   
  • Ms. Brown was assigned to several prominent law firms providing legal representation to various businesses while attending law school. Such firms included Latham and Watkins, a major international firm.  She also participated in the work-study program at the Superior Court of California assisting the public at the Family Law Facilitator’s office. During her tenure, she supported several Judges in preparing minute entries after hearings.  
  • In 2004, Ms. Brown prepared a Comparative Study Memorandum on family law community services available in Arizona for review by the Judicial Council of California.  
  • In her early years, Ms. Brown was published by Gannett News Service. Among several of her articles, she featured a story alongside former President Ronald Reagan’s commencement speech. This speech fell on the heels of his earlier visit to Hammonton, New Jersey. As an Account Executive in South Jersey for NBC Radio (WTYO 1580AM), Ms. Brown was responsible for contracting sponsorship with local law firms for the radio talk show titled “The Law and You.” 
  • During this time, she volunteered as a Blue Helmet for the Mullica Township Ambulance Squad, as well as provided oversight to the Township in their recycling waste management facility.
  • Ms. Brown shares her dedication and integrity with her clients through her professional commitment to the law and community.
Location:
7047 East Greenway Parkway, Suite 250
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Hours:
By Appointment  (480) 473-8926
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Here’s to a Happy and Prosperous 2015 !

Before too much time slips away, I want to take a moment to reflect and thank all of you who continue to support me in my professional achievements. Best wishes to all for a Happy and Prosperous 2015.

Posted in General Communication | Leave a comment

Question of the Day

Question of the Day:

I have a client who was injured in an accident and sought medical treatment. He was in severe pain and did not wish to take prescription medication. He was given a prescription for medicinal marijuana. Marijuana is not illegal in Arizona for medicinal purposes. In his demand for damages, included under prescription reimbursement were receipts for purchases made at the dispensary. Now the insurance wants to deny these costs.

Mind you, they denied a prior client’s costs for treatment sought by an acupuncturist asserting this is unconventional medicine. Years ago, they would deny chiropractic treatment until that gained more acceptance as a manner of treatment.

So the question is: Should the insurance be required to reimburse costs similar to prescription drugs for medicinal marijuana?

Posted in Negligence | Leave a comment

Automotive Recalls

This recall helps to illustrate that not all recalls are due to a manufacturer defect or poor regulatory oversight, but can be the result of environmental factors.

Spiders Lead to Mazda Recall (2014, April 5) http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Spiders-Lead-to-Mazda-Recall-254020251.html

Posted in Lemon Law and Consumer Protection | Leave a comment

Automotive Warranty Claims and GM’s Recall

Today I ran across an article titled, “The 57-cent part at the center of GM’s recall crisis,” and felt compelled to comment. First, my sincere condolences to the families who may have lost a loved one as a result of this recall crisis. As an arbitrator for the Better Business Bureau (BBB), I have heard many automotive warranty claims over the past 8 years by and between consumers and various manufacturers. Many automotive manufacturers have adopted the BBB Auto Line arbitration process as a resource available to consumers to help resolve warranty claims before seeking judicial remedies in court. Basically, manufacturers who participate in the BBB Auto Line Program are bound to the Arbitrator’s decision. However, the consumer can either accept or reject the decision. Should the consumer reject the Arbitrator’s decision, then they can proceed to take their warranty claim[s] through the judicial process.

Most participating manufacturers provide in the new vehicle’s owner manual the manner in which a consumer can file a complaint. The owner’s manual will usually direct the consumer to the Better Business Bureau Auto Line Arbitration Center. Once the warranty claim complaint is filed with the BBB Auto Line, this will serve to satisfy the notice requirement should the manufacturer follow Arizona’s lemon law. However, not all manufacturers incorporate the states lemon law into their BBB Auto Line Program Summary.

For example, under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 44-1261 to 1267, which addresses Motor Vehicle Warranties, A.R.S. § 44-1263(A) states, “If the manufacturer, its agents or its authorized dealers are unable to conform the motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty by repairing or correcting any defect or condition which substantially impairs the use and value of the motor vehicle to the consumer after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall replace the motor vehicle with a new motor vehicle or accept return of the motor vehicle from the consumer and refund to the consumer the full purchase price, including all collateral charges, less a reasonable allowance for the consumer’s use of the vehicle.”

In review of this section, there needs to be a “substantial impairment to the use and value of the motor vehicle,” but nothing is expressly stated about “safety.” In comparison, many of the manufacturers program summaries model most of the language found in state statutes, but do insert the key term, “safety.” When hearing a matter, the Arbitrator who is following the manufacturer’s program summary will not only consider whether the use and value of the new vehicle has been substantially impaired, but will factor in “safety.” Additionally, A.R.S. § 44-1264 (A) and (B), states that a presumption will be met after 4 or more repair attempts or 30 days out of service for the same nonconformity before awarding a replacement or repurchase.

Under the BBB Manufacturer’s Program Summary, no presumption must be met, so a consumer could bring forth his warranty complaint which may have been addressed by manufacturer or manufacturer’s agent on 2 or more repair visits, or kept the vehicle out of service for less than 30 days for repairs under a new vehicle warranty, and yet could still be awarded a replacement or repurchase. It is not always necessary that the manufacturer or its agent be able to duplicate the complained of issue, as the Arbitrator will take into account various factors before rendering an impartial decision.

In every situation, an Arbitrator will consider whether the alleged defect substantially impairs the vehicle’s use, value and safety. This is not a determination performed on their own accord but is analyzed through a review of a variety of documents, such as the manufacturer’s repair orders, manufacturer’s technical field engineer reports, impartial third-party technical expert reports, design and engineering schematics, import manifest, owner’s manual instructions, Technical Service Bulletins (TSEs), and other source materials. Additionally, the rules of evidence as would traditionally apply in a judicial proceeding are very relaxed in the BBB hearing forum and consumers are permitted to present outside resources such as videos, photographs, witnesses, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports, and materials they believe will help substantiate their position.

Consumer protection is at the forefront, and while GM’s recall is unfortunate, I must disagree that there is “criminal deception” to fault the manufacturer (Isidore, 2014).

For more information on the BBB Auto Line Program, please visit: http://www.bbb.org/council/programs-services/dispute-handling-and-resolution/bbb-auto-line/bbb-auto-lines-process/description-and-rules-all-states-except-california/

Reference:
Isidore, Chris (2014, Apr 2). The 57-cent part at the center of GM’s recall crisis. Retrieved April 2, 2014, from CNNMoney: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/02/news/companies/gm-recall-part/index.html

Posted in Lemon Law and Consumer Protection | Leave a comment

Lawyer Netiquette and Bad Online Reviews

I recently read a story that appeared in the American Bar Association titled, “Lawyer’s response to client’s bad Avvo review leads to disciplinary complaint.” The story addressed a disciplinary action being sought against a state of Illinois attorney for posting what is purported to be an ethical violation wherein she allegedly breached her attorney-client privilege toward a former client (Weiss, 2013). No final determination has been made and it is unfortunate for this attorney since no attorney wishes to find themselves in this situation as in any field or profession, we all want “happy, satisfied” clients/customers. However, that is not always the case and we do live in different times.

But what peeked my interest in this story are the comments that followed as to the pros and cons of websites such as AVVO, and ratings and reviews provided by the general public on open forums. It is my understanding that people today want information and so they utilize the internet to seek this information. Days of the hardbound Martindale-Hubbell AV ratings based on subscription values are gone no matter how seasoned or superior your practice. Today people seek quick, fast information, and AVVO serves this purpose as well as being a good marketing tool to help showcase knowledge or your practice areas without yet creating an attorney-client relationship by allowing just enough insight to garner interest from persons seeking legal services to consider retaining your firm. I have learned that it takes a special skill set to ethically maneuver your way online with an awareness to minimize exposing yourself to disciplinary action regardless of your profession.

I understand the ethical dilemma shared in this story of not being able to use “confidentiality” as both a shield and a sword, but as we continue to grow toward this increased wave of transparency, it would be well-advised to take a time out and prepare a written office procedure that is customized to your practice, trade, or industry as to how you or your staff will address various social media and/or rating websites as it pertains to your business. Or in the alternative, to at least give some forethought on how you plan to interact on the online environment. It is unavoidable no matter how you slice it as we hear of bad actors in all professions making wrong decisions that sometimes do or do not amount to libel or loss of reputation on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, linkedin, and Instagram. While we do not have time to monitor all online activity, it would be wise to institute specific guidelines. For those reluctant to migrate to a slightly expansive online presence, they likely will be left waiting in the dust as the younger, techie generation of professionals danze around you.

In today’s currency, it seems businesses want to retain the services of those persons who possess technological knowledge and resources. For example, take the transition of many local courts converting to online e-filing as credence to this new direction. Even in the courtroom, detainees are making first appearances via videoconferencing direct from the correction facility. Regardless of your trade, set in place and apply “proper netiquette,” and risk-management measures that are aimed to stand the test of good taste and ethical behavior.

I am reminded of the days when online teaching was taboo and through the years has become a valued resource to learning. As an adjunct professor teaching both online and in traditional classroom settings, I see many instructors exposed to ratings by students on various websites such as “Rate Your Professor.” It is never ending and seemingly the new norm of our society, so best to learn how to maximize its benefits and understand how these sites can add value to your practice versus honing in on the detriments that exist around every corner whether on foot or online.

Resource:
Weiss, Debra Cassens (12 Sept 2013). Lawyer’s response to client’s bad Avvo review leads to disciplinary complaint. Retrieved September 13, 2013 from: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_alleged_response_to_bad_avvo_review_leads_to_disciplinary_complaint/

Posted in Ethics and Technology | Leave a comment

Distressed Properties in Arizona

While the Arizona Journal of Real Estate & Business (2013 Aug) reported a foreclosure decrease of 3,793 (May 2012) to 1,234 (May 2013) in the Phoenix area which is more than a 50 percent decline in recorded Notices of Trustee’s Sales, and the Phoenix Business Journal (2013 Jul 30) also reported that home foreclosures are down 1.5 percent from last year, there are still homeowners who are in need of assistance. Whether you are facing foreclosure, require a loan modification, or are simply in need of debt counseling, there are programs available to qualified homeowners to help consumers during financially trying times.  The Law Offices of Linda Marie Brown PLLC is here to help distressed homeowners discover resources or options they may qualify for or to learn more about the foreclosure process.

Sources:

Arizona Journal of Real Estate & Business, Vol. 28 No. 8 (2013 August). The Wilcox Report provided by Fletcher Wilcox, Grand Canyon Title Agency, Inc.

Gallen, T. (2013, July 30). Phoenix home foreclosure inventory down to meager 1 percent. The Phoenix Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2013/07/30/phoenix-home-foreclosure-inventory.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2013-07-30&u=yF+ErqOSeoSc29RjojXpFH8HG7z&t=1375329179

Posted in Creditor Debtor, Real Estate | Leave a comment