The post Berk Law Group Welcomes Associate Attorney Harris M. Scharf appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>Harris brings a thoughtful, practical approach to his work. He understands that trust and estate disputes rarely involve legal issues alone. They often arise during difficult moments for families and can involve longstanding relationships, financial concerns, and strong emotions. Harris approaches each matter with careful preparation, sound judgment, and sensitivity to the family dynamics involved.
Harris’s interest in trust and estate litigation began during his first year of law school, when a trust dispute arose within his own family following the death of his grandfather.
Experiencing that dispute firsthand gave Harris a unique perspective on the challenges clients may face when disagreements arise over a loved one’s estate or trust. He saw how legal questions can quickly become intertwined with grief, family relationships, and uncertainty.
That experience ultimately inspired Harris to join our practice focused on helping others navigate similar circumstances.
Before joining Berk Law Group, Harris practiced civil litigation in Phoenix, where he represented clients in construction defect and general liability matters. His litigation background strengthened his skills in case preparation, analysis, advocacy, and resolving complex disputes, experience he now brings to his probate, trust, estate, and fiduciary litigation practice.
Harris earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Minnesota Law School, where he served as a certified student attorney and Student Director of the Business Law and Entrepreneurship Clinic. During law school, he also worked as a Summer Associate at an AmLaw 25 firm in Silicon Valley.
Before attending law school, Harris graduated magna cum laude from the University of Arizona W.A. Franke Honors College, earning a double major in Philosophy, Politics, Economics & Law (PPEL) and Economics.
Harris is admitted to practice law in Arizona and Minnesota, as well as before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Outside of the office, Harris enjoys road and hiking with his dog, Sawyer. He also values spending time with family and friends.
We are excited to have Harris join Berk Law Group and believe his litigation experience, personal connection to this area of law, and thoughtful approach to client representation make him an excellent addition to our team.
Please join us in welcoming Harris M. Scharf to Berk Law Group.
The post Berk Law Group Welcomes Associate Attorney Harris M. Scharf appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>The post AI Is Already in Your Practice. Arizona Has Now Told You What That Requires appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>Today, I moderated the second session of the Maricopa County Bar Association’s quarterly forum series, Mind, Machine & Practice. I was joined by the Hon. David B. Gass of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, and the Hon. Lisa VandenBerg, Arizona’s Presiding Disciplinary Judge. Our subject was artificial intelligence in legal practice, and the hour was eligible for ethics CLE credit.
What follows are my own takeaways. Nothing here is attributed to either judge, and nothing here is legal advice.
Three developments in the last twelve months framed the conversation.
Effective January 1, 2026, Arizona became the first state in the country to write technology competence into its Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 2.5, comment 1 now provides that judicial competence includes the use and knowledge of the risks and benefits of technology. That duty now mirrors what ER 1.1 has long required of lawyers.
In July 2026, our Court of Appeals decided Dineen-Shibata v. Kotchka, 1 CA-CV 25-0606-PB. A litigant submitted an appellate brief in which six of eight citations were deficient and two were to cases that simply do not exist. The court held that filing fabricated, AI-generated authorities is sanctionable regardless of intent, and refused a good-faith defense in terms worth quoting: “Submission of hallucinated case citations—intentional or unintentional—is unjustifiable. To accept a defense of lack of ill intent would legitimize reckless indifference to the truth and accuracy of court filings and tolerate some level of misrepresentation. This we will not do..”
And a petition is pending before the Arizona Supreme Court, proposed Rule 135, that would go considerably further on the judicial side. It would provide that “[t]hrough December 31, 2029, no judicial officer may use Generative AI in core judicial work,” meaning the drafting of orders, rulings, decisions, and opinions, and would require disclosure where AI did assist. There have been numerous comments and objections to this rule.
So the question is no longer whether AI belongs in our practice. It is here. The question is what competence, confidentiality, candor, and supervision now require of us.
The theme that ran through the entire hour was responsibility. AI is a tool that requires supervision and verification. It is not a substitute for professional judgment, and it does not shift accountability for what goes out the door under your signature. Kotchka makes the consequence of skipping that step concrete. Good intentions are not a defense.
One thread I had not fully appreciated was the burden on the bench. Self-represented litigants increasingly use AI to generate pleadings, and courts are absorbing the cost of evaluating whether the cited authorities are real. That is time that comes out of every other case on the calendar.
The discussion included practical responses to serial AI-generated filings by pro se parties: meeting and conferring with the litigant, requesting a status conference, and, where the pattern warrants it, seeking vexatious litigant relief.
There is a real tension here, and we did not resolve it. Kotchka itself involved a self-represented party in a probate appeal. A no-intent sanctions rule falls hardest on people who reached for AI because they could not afford counsel. Whether that deters fabrication or deters access is a question the profession will be working through for some time.
The panel was clear that ignoring how prevalent AI has become is not a responsible posture. The better response is education and deliberate adoption, with the firm balancing privilege, confidentiality, accuracy, and ethical obligations against real efficiency gains.
That means guardrails: a written firm AI policy, training, detailed instructions and parameters inside the tools themselves, and a review step that is actually performed rather than assumed. It also means knowing what a given tool does with what you put into it, before client confidences go in.
At Berk Law Group, we use AI on the administrative side for things like forms, employee handbook content, and website applications, and on the legal side for research support, drafting assistance, and workflow. Every output gets reviewed. That is the whole point.
Here is what I keep coming back to. Not one of the Arizona ethical rules implicated by AI is new. ER 1.1 competence, ER 1.3 diligence, ER 1.6 confidentiality, ER 1.4 communication, ER 1.5 fees, ER 3.3 candor to the tribunal, ER 5.1 and 5.3 supervision, ER 8.4(c) misconduct. Every one of them predates generative AI by decades.
What changed is the speed. A single tool, used carelessly, can now implicate five of those rules in one filing, in about ninety seconds. The obligations did not get harder. The failure mode got faster.
The next installment of Mind, Machine & Practice is Thursday, November 12, 2026. Information is available through the Maricopa County Bar Association.
Kent S. Berk is the managing attorney of Berk Law Group, P.C., where he handles probate, trust, estate, and fiduciary litigation throughout Arizona. This article is provided for general informational purposes, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The post AI Is Already in Your Practice. Arizona Has Now Told You What That Requires appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>The post Berk Law Group Welcomes Senior Associate Allison “Ali” Evans appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>With more than 15 years of experience in fiduciary disputes and litigation, Ali brings substantial courtroom experience, a deep understanding of Arizona probate law, and a long-standing commitment to serving clients facing difficult and often highly personal disputes.
Ali’s legal career has strong roots in Arizona, and Berk Law Group is excited to welcome her back to the state.
For the past six years, Ali practiced at Kembell Woods & Martinsen LLP, a boutique law firm specializing in estate planning, administration, and fiduciary litigation in Missouri and Kansas. During that time, she expanded her trial experience and represented beneficiaries, fiduciaries, and other interested parties in high-value contested matters.
Her return to Arizona allows her to continue building on an extensive career in trust and estate litigation in the state where much of her practice began.
Before practicing in Missouri and Kansas, Ali worked at Becker & House, P.L.L.C. in Scottsdale, where she progressed from associate to partner and litigated contested probate and civil matters throughout Arizona.
Her experience includes matters involving:
Ali has handled cases through every stage of litigation, including discovery, depositions, coordination with expert witnesses, mediation, and trial. That breadth of experience allows her to evaluate cases from both a legal and practical perspective while helping clients understand their options throughout the litigation process.
In addition to her work on behalf of clients, Ali has demonstrated a strong commitment to public service and Arizona’s legal community.
She has served as a Judge Pro Tempore for the Maricopa County Superior Court and as Secretary of the Maricopa County Bar Association Probate, Trusts & Estates Section. She has also volunteered with the Probate Lawyers Assistance Project.
These roles reflect Ali’s long-standing commitment to professionalism, service, and the integrity of Arizona’s probate system.
Ali earned her Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Phoenix School of Law and her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Arizona.
She is admitted to practice in:
Ali’s combination of Arizona experience, extensive fiduciary litigation background, courtroom experience, and dedication to the legal community makes her a valuable addition to Berk Law Group.
Please join us in welcoming Allison “Ali” Evans back to Arizona and to the Berk Law Group team.
The post Berk Law Group Welcomes Senior Associate Allison “Ali” Evans appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>The post Who Can Be in the Room? A New Arizona Privilege Ruling and Your Probate or Trust Matter appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>Families rarely go through a trust or estate dispute alone. An adult child helps an aging parent keep track of things. A trustee leans on the accountant who knows the numbers. Two siblings who agree on how a trust should be handled compare notes. A caregiver drives someone to the meeting and stays to listen. All of it is natural, and all of it raises the same question: when another person is part of your conversations with your attorney, are those conversations still protected?
On July 17, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court gave a clearer, and stricter, answer.
In Gelvin v. Parker, a spouse going through a divorce wanted her mother closely involved in the case. The mother had helped fund the couple through family trusts, so she knew the financial picture well. To try to keep those conversations confidential, the daughter and mother each signed a document stating that everything shared with the mother would stay privileged.
When the other side asked for those communications in discovery, the question went all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court: does signing a confidentiality agreement keep a third party’s involvement in attorney/client communications protected? The Court’s answer was no.
It held that simply including a third party in communications you are conducting with your lawyer is protected only in narrow circumstances. For example, when that person’s presence is objectively necessary to the legal advice. You and your lawyer cannot create privilege by agreement where the law would not otherwise recognize it. The burden of proving the communication is protected falls on the person asserting the privilege.
In reaching that result, the Court overruled an earlier decision, Accomazzo v. Kemp, that many lawyers had relied on for the opposite view.
The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest protections in the law. It shields confidential communications between you and your lawyer that are made to get or give legal advice. So you can speak candidly. When it applies, the other side generally cannot force you or your lawyer to reveal what was said.
But it protects only confidential communications, and courts read it narrowly. As a rule, the moment a communication is shared with someone outside the attorney-client relationship, the confidentiality, and the protection, can be lost. Two points from Gelvin are worth keeping in mind:
First, the test is objective, not about what you hoped or intended.
Second, a signed confidentiality form does not, by itself, create protection the law would not otherwise give.
The bottom line. You cannot manufacture privilege by paperwork. Whether another person’s involvement is protected depends on the role they actually play, not on the title on a form or a promise to keep things confidential.
The decision did not close the door. A person other than you and your lawyer can still be inside your protected circle in more than one way.
Necessity is one route, not the only one:
The common thread is that the person genuinely belongs inside your legal relationship, either because they represent you or because they are truly needed, not simply because their presence is reassuring or convenient. Otherwise, the privilege would extend beyond it’s intended scope: to protect “attorney-client” communications, not all communications.
Nowhere does the “who else is involved” question arise more than in probate, trust, estate, and guardianship matters. These cases run on family, money, and helpers, and the people around the client are often woven into every conversation. Here is how the issue tends to show up.
A son or daughter sits in on the parent’s meetings, is copied on emails, and speaks with the lawyer to move things along. If the parent is a capable adult and simply wants the help, the child is a support person, and those communications are usually not protected. It can be different if the parent has genuinely authorized the child to act as an agent, for example under a power of attorney, and the child is actually conducting the matter on the parent’s behalf, such as where the parent is impaired due to dementia.
Support role: usually not protected but depends on circumstances.
This is the one that surprises people most. When a trustee gets legal advice about administering the trust, the beneficiaries may be entitled to see it.
Arizona recognizes a “fiduciary exception”: advice a trustee obtains in a fiduciary capacity to benefit the trust is generally not shielded from the beneficiaries. Advice the trustee gets about their own potential liability, or in anticipation of a fight with the beneficiaries, is treated differently and is more likely to stay protected, especially if it is handled and paid for separately.
Administration advice: often reachable by beneficiaries, but depends on the circumstances.
Two or more beneficiaries who share the same legal position, for example jointly defending a trust against a challenge, can sometimes share privileged communications under the common-interest doctrine, if they set it up properly with an agreement. The catch is that people aligned today can become adverse tomorrow, and shared communications can then surface between them.
Shared legal interest: possible, if structured.
A sibling, a new spouse, a close friend, or a fellow church member comes along to support the client and ends up in the thread. For a capable adult client, that involvement is generally not necessary to the legal advice, so those communications are usually not protected, and the helper can often be questioned about what they know.
Support role: usually not protected.
A financial advisor or accountant can be brought inside the privilege when your lawyer genuinely needs their expertise to advise you. A caregiver who simply attends is usually not protected, unless a real communication need, such as a disability, makes their help necessary.
Heavy involvement by someone who stands to benefit can also raise undue-influence questions, which matters a great deal in elder and vulnerable-adult cases.
Advisors, accountants and caregivers: depends on necessity and setup.
A parent pays for an adult child’s representation, or a child pays for a parent’s. Paying the bill does not make the payer the client, and it does not bring them inside the client’s privilege. Being generous is not the same as being part of the confidential relationship.
Fee payer: not protected on that basis.
Not sure where your situation stands? Try our free Arizona Privilege Assessment, a private, two-minute self-assessment that walks through who is involved in your matter and flags whether their presence may affect your attorney-client privilege. It stores nothing, and it is general information, not legal advice.
The Court applied its decision going forward, not backward. Communications made before July 17, 2026 in reasonable reliance on the prior rule are generally not disturbed. From here on, though, the stricter standard governs, so now is the time to review how the people around you are involved in any active or upcoming matter.
Generally no. After Gelvin, you and your lawyer cannot create privilege by agreement where the law would not otherwise recognize it. A signed confidentiality or no-waiver form does not, by itself, protect a communication that a third party is part of.
It depends on the role. If you validly authorize your child to act as your agent, for example under a power of attorney, and they actually handle the matter and deal with the lawyer on your behalf, those communications can stay privileged because the agent stands in your shoes. If your child is simply helping while you still run the matter, they are a support person and those conversations usually are not protected.
Often, yes, for advice about administering the trust. Arizona recognizes a fiduciary exception: when a trustee gets legal advice in a fiduciary capacity to benefit the trust, the beneficiaries are generally entitled to see it. Advice you get about your own potential liability, or in anticipation of a dispute with the beneficiaries, is treated differently and is more likely to stay protected, especially if it is handled and paid for separately.
For a capable adult client, usually yes, unless that person’s presence is genuinely necessary to the legal advice or they are your authorized representative. A family member who is there for support or a second opinion is generally not inside the privilege, and can often be questioned about what they learned.
Sometimes, under the common-interest doctrine, if they truly share a legal interest, for example jointly defending a trust, and set it up with an agreement, preferably in writing. The caution is that people aligned today can become adverse later, and communications shared under that arrangement can then surface between them.
Paying the bill does not make the payer your lawyer’s client, and it does not bring them inside your privilege. Being generous is not the same as being part of the confidential relationship.
No. The Court applied its decision going forward, not backward. Communications made before July 17, 2026 in reasonable reliance on the prior rule are generally not disturbed. The stricter standard governs from that date on.
Before you include a family member, advisor, trustee, or beneficiary in a conversation about your matter, talk with us. A short consultation now can prevent a costly disclosure later.
The post Who Can Be in the Room? A New Arizona Privilege Ruling and Your Probate or Trust Matter appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>The post Testamentary Capacity in Arizona: Can Someone With Dementia Still Legally Sign a Will? appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>In a published opinion issued on July 29, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals answered that question and, in the process, reversed a trial court that had admitted a contested will to probate. Samaras v. Samaras is an important read for anyone involved in estate planning for aging clients, and for families weighing whether to challenge or defend a will.
Byron Samaras had two children, Christina and Nicholas (“Nico”). In 2017, Byron created a family living trust that named both children as equal beneficiaries. Alongside the trust, he signed a “pour-over” will naming Christina as personal representative and directing that the residue of his estate flow into the trust at his death. Under that 2017 plan, the two children shared equally.
Nearly a year later, in August 2018, Byron signed a new will through different counsel. The 2018 will again named Christina as personal representative, but this time it left Byron’s entire estate to Christina and provided nothing for Nico, noting that the trust already accounted for him.
The change did not happen in a vacuum. The record described a man whose cognition was slipping. In late 2016 Byron became lost while driving because of memory problems. In February 2017 he tried, unsuccessfully, to revise his will but could not articulate the changes he wanted. In mid-June 2017 (more than a year before he signed the 2018 will) a neurologist diagnosed him with moderate dementia. In 2018 he tried to give away a car, and a friend refused it, believing Byron did not understand what he was doing. Later that year, Byron was found wandering and trying to enter other people’s homes.
Byron died in December 2022. Nico petitioned to invalidate the 2018 will, arguing his father lacked the mental capacity to make it. Christina cross-petitioned to be appointed personal representative under that will. After a four-day bench trial, the superior court admitted the 2018 will to probate, finding that Byron had testamentary capacity when he signed it. Nico appealed.
Arizona law sets a deliberately low bar for making a will, and it starts from a strong preference for honoring a person’s wishes. To make a valid will, a person must be at least eighteen and “of sound mind.” Courts have long measured “sound mind” using a three-part test: the testator must be able to know the nature and extent of their property, understand their relationship to the people who would naturally inherit, and understand that they are signing a will.
Two features of Arizona’s statutory framework shaped this appeal.
First, Arizona law presumes that a testator had capacity and acted free of undue influence at the time of execution.
Second, that presumption is rebuttable: a challenger who comes forward with contrary evidence can overcome it by a preponderance of the evidence. Arizona case law also distinguishes between two very different kinds of incapacity: a broad, general mental incompetency, and the narrower situation of a specific delusion or hallucination directly affecting the will. And when capacity is genuinely disputed, courts are directed to weigh the “totality of the circumstances.”
The trial court had focused tightly on the day of signing. In its view, capacity is measured at the moment of execution, so evidence about Byron’s condition in the months before and after signing the contested document was largely set aside. The problem, as the Court of Appeals saw it, was that the trial court treated that surrounding evidence as off-limits rather than as relevant proof of Byron’s condition at signing.
The Court of Appeals agreed that capacity is assessed at the time of execution. That much is settled. But it held that this timing rule does not wall off everything that came before or after. Evidence of mental decline surrounding the signing is admissible and relevant precisely because it tends to show the testator’s mental condition at the moment that matters. A neurologist’s dementia diagnosis, an inability to handle a simple car transaction, and episodes of disorientation in the same general period are not irrelevant just because they are not date-stamped to signing day. They are exactly the kind of circumstantial evidence the “totality of the circumstances” standard contemplates.
The court was also troubled by an internal inconsistency in the trial court’s findings. The trial court had found Nico’s witnesses, including expert testimony it called probative and compelling, to be more credible than Christina’s, yet still concluded that Nico had not carried his burden. In the appellate court’s words: “This Court cannot square the superior court’s findings that Christina and other witnesses were unreliable and not credible with its determination that Nico did not meet his burden.”
The Court of Appeals reversed the admission of the 2018 will and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court must decide whether Nico rebutted the presumption of capacity and, if so, whether the totality of the evidence shows the will was invalid. In doing so, the Court must keep in mind that surrounding evidence matters only insofar as it illuminates Byron’s mental condition at the time he signed.
Importantly, the decision does not declare the 2018 will invalid. It sends the case back so the trial court can apply the correct evidentiary standard. But the reversal is a meaningful win for a will contestant, and the opinion is now published precedent that other Arizona litigants can rely on. The full opinion is available on the Arizona Court of Appeals website.
For planning clients and their advisors, Samaras is a reminder that a diagnosis is not a disqualification. But it is an invitation to a challenge. People with a dementia diagnosis can still make valid wills; the legal standard for capacity is modest and is measured at signing.
The practical lesson is that when a client’s capacity may later be questioned, contemporaneous documentation is invaluable. A drafting attorney’s detailed notes, a physician’s letter dated near execution, and careful attention to the relevant factors can make the difference between a will that stands and one that is unwound years later after the client is gone and can no longer explain themselves.
For families considering or defending a will contest, the case clarifies what evidence is fair game. You do not need a witness who can describe the testator’s mind during the signing itself. Evidence of decline in the surrounding weeks and months is relevant and can be enough to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity if the impairment is generalized decline, rather than particular hallucinations. Once that presumption is rebutted, the outcome turns on the whole picture, not a single moment in isolation. And Samaras underscores that a court’s credibility findings and its ultimate ruling need to line up: crediting the challenger’s witnesses while ruling against the challenger is the kind of tension that draws appellate scrutiny.
Will and trust disputes are painful precisely because they arrive after a loved one is gone, when memories and motives can no longer be tested by the person at the center of it all. Careful planning during life, and clear-eyed evaluation of the evidence afterward, are the best tools on both sides.
What is testamentary capacity in Arizona?
Testamentary capacity is the level of mental soundness a person must have to make a valid will. In Arizona, the person must be at least eighteen and of sound mind, meaning they are able to know the nature and extent of their property, understand their relationship to the people who would naturally inherit, and understand that they are signing a will. Capacity is measured at the moment the will is signed.
Can someone with dementia still make a valid will in Arizona?
Yes. A dementia diagnosis does not automatically invalidate a will. The legal standard for capacity is modest, and a person can meet it even after a diagnosis, as long as they had the required understanding at the time of signing. That said, a diagnosis often invites a challenge, which is why contemporaneous documentation of capacity is so valuable.
Can a court consider evidence from before or after the will was signed?
Yes. While capacity is judged at the moment of execution, Samaras v. Samaras confirms that evidence of mental decline in the surrounding weeks and months is admissible and relevant, because it helps show the person’s mental condition at signing. A court should not disregard that evidence simply because it is not date-stamped to signing day.
Who has the burden of proof in an Arizona will contest?
Arizona law presumes that a testator had capacity and acted free of undue influence when the will was executed. A person challenging the will can rebut that presumption with contrary evidence, and must ultimately prove the will’s invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence.
What did the Court of Appeals decide in Samaras v. Samaras?
The court reversed the trial court’s admission of the 2018 will and sent the case back for further proceedings. It held that the trial court applied too narrow a view of the evidence and could not reconcile finding the challenger’s witnesses more credible while still ruling against him. The decision did not declare the will invalid; it directed the trial court to apply the correct evidentiary standard.
At Berk Law Group, we focus on Arizona probate, trust, and estate litigation, including will and trust contests and the financial exploitation of vulnerable adults. Testamentary capacity disputes like Samaras v. Samaras sit right at the center of what we do: challenging or defending a will signed after a dementia diagnosis, building the medical and other records that show a testator’s true condition around the day of signing, and helping families protect a loved one’s real intentions.
If you are worried that a will was signed when a family member no longer understood what they were doing, or you are a personal representative defending a will against that claim, the evidence you preserve and how you present it will often decide the outcome. Medical records, witness accounts, and the drafting attorney’s file matter most when they are gathered early, before memories fade and documents disappear. Not sure where your matter stands? Start with our free Arizona probate assessment, then talk to us.
Contact Berk Law Group or call 480.607.7900 to schedule a confidential consultation. For more than 30 years, we have helped Arizonans protect their families, their inheritances, and their rights in court.
Samaras v. Samaras, 1 CA-CV 25-0611 PB (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One, July 29, 2026)
The post Testamentary Capacity in Arizona: Can Someone With Dementia Still Legally Sign a Will? appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>The post Berk Law Group Welcomes Amanda Thomas as Director of Operations appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>Amanda brings more than 20 years of operational leadership to Berk Law Group. She founded her own company in 2007, built and led its teams for 14 years, and successfully sold the business in 2021. She went on to establish The Fractionals, providing fractional COO services to growing businesses and helping founders transition from management to leadership.
“Amanda’s experience building and growing teams is exactly what our firm needs at this stage,” said Kent Berk, founder of Berk Law Group. “She shares our commitment to serving clients with care and excellence, and I’m thrilled to have her leading our operations as we grow.”
For years, Berk Law Group has been the trusted resource that Arizona families turn to during some of their most difficult moments. From navigating probate, trust, estate, fiduciary and inheritance disputes to guardianships, conservatorships, and elder abuse matters. As demand for that work continues to grow, the firm is investing in the people and systems needed to serve even more clients with the same skill and steadiness that have defined its reputation.
That growth also means new opportunities to join the team. Berk Law Group is currently hiring two attorneys and a paralegal for its Scottsdale office. Prospective candidates can learn more and apply at berklawgroup.com/careers.
The post Berk Law Group Welcomes Amanda Thomas as Director of Operations appeared first on Arizona Estate & Trust Dispute Lawyers.
]]>