An attorney may be legally disqualified from representing a person or entity—often due to a conflict of interest. Attorney disqualification is a severe remedy, and has the potential to cause immediate harm by depriving a party of its chosen counsel, and disrupting court proceedings. Thus, a party requesting disqualification of an attorney generally has a high burden of proof, and must establish with specificity the basis for disqualification.

To meet this burden, mere allegations of a general conflict of interest, or of unethical conduct or evidence showing a remote possibility of a violation of the state’s disciplinary rules of ethical conduct will not suffice. While the state’s disciplinary rules are often not binding in such matters, courts look to them as guidelines in determining whether an attorney’s conduct requires disqualification.

In Arizona, the disqualification of an attorney from representing a client due to conflicts of interest is considered a drastic measure due to its significant impact on the client's right to chosen counsel and the potential disruption to court proceedings. As such, the party seeking disqualification bears a high burden of proof. They must provide specific evidence that clearly establishes the grounds for disqualification, rather than just general allegations of conflict or unethical behavior. The possibility of a violation of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct alone is not enough to warrant disqualification. Although these rules are not directly enforceable in disqualification proceedings, Arizona courts use them as a reference point to assess whether an attorney's behavior is sufficiently problematic to necessitate removal from a case. The courts will weigh the evidence presented against the potential harm to the legal process and the client's interests before deciding on disqualification.