On Friday, September 5, 2025, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona admonished attorney David T. Panzarella for violating the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. This decision, documented under case number PDJ 2025-9029 and State Bar No. 24-0673, follows an Agreement for Discipline by Consent submitted by Panzarella and the State Bar of Arizona, pursuant to Rule 57(a) of the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of David T. Panzarella,” with case number PDJ 2025-9029.
The admonishment stems from a formal complaint filed on April 25, 2025, which referenced State Bar No. 24-0673. The agreement, which was reached on August 28, 2025, addresses ethical issues that arose during Panzarella’s representation of two clients in a civil matter.
According to the documents, Panzarella conditionally admitted to violating Rule 42 of the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, specifically Ethical Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 1.16(a)(1). These violations included a negligent failure to timely inform a client in writing about the acceptance of a settlement offer, failure to notify clients of the filing of a Motion to Compel Settlement, failure to provide written notice of a scheduled Status Conference, failure to notify the court that he could not obtain a written release from his clients, and failure to withdraw as counsel when his client would not respond to communication attempts. In exchange for the admission and agreement to the admonishment, the State Bar dismissed allegations concerning violations of Ethical Rules 1.7(a)(2), 1.15, 3.3, and 8.4(c).
In addition to the admonishment, Panzarella is ordered to pay $1,200.00 to cover the costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar of Arizona within 30 days of the order. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge’s office incurred no costs.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge Lisa A. VandenBerg accepted the Agreement for Discipline by Consent, noting that it provides appropriate protections to the public and aligns with the objectives of the lawyer discipline process. In making her determination, Judge VandenBerg considered the duties violated, Panzarella’s mental state, the potential harm caused by the misconduct, and both aggravating and mitigating factors.
According to Avvo, Mr. Panzarella is an insurance lawyer in Phoenix, AZ. He acquired his law license in Arizona in 1991.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
