IN THE

S UPREME C OURT OF THE S TATE OF A RIZONA

B ILL AND S UE B EVERAGE , H USBAND AND W IFE , Plaintiffs/Appellants
,

v.

P ULLMAN & C OMLEY , LLC; D. R OBERT M ORRIS , AN I NDIVIDUAL Defendants/Appellees

.

No . C V

- 13

- 0170

- PR Filed January 24 , 201 4

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Colleen L. French , Judge No. CV2011

- 091442 REVERSED

Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Division One 232 Ariz. 414 , 306 P.3d 71 (20 13 ) AFFIRMED

COUNSEL :
Leo R. Beus (argued), A. Erin McGuinness, and Abigail M. Terhune, Beus Gilbert
, P

. L

. L

. C

. , Phoenix, for Bill and Sue Beverage

Don P. Martin (argued) and Michael S. Catlett, Quarles & Brady
, L

. L

. P

. , Phoenix, for Pullman & Comley
, L

. L

. C

. , and D. Robert Morris

Andrew J. Petersen, Humphre y & Petersen, P.C., Tucson, for Amic us Arizona Association of Defense Counsel

Stanley G. Feldman, Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C., Tucson, and David L. Abney, Knapp & Roberts, P.C., Scottsdale, for Amici Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers AssociationBEVERAGE V

. PULLMAN Opinion of the Court

2 CHIEF JUSTICE B ERCH authored the opinion of the Court, in which VICE CHIEF JUSTICE B ALES , JUSTICE PELANDER, JUSTICE BRUTINEL , and JU STICE TIMMER joined.

CHIEF JUSTICE B ERCH , opinion o f the Court:

¶1 This Court granted review to determine whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that Arizona courts have specific jurisdiction

over a Connecticut lawyer and law firm retained by Arizona residents to provide an opinion letter regarding a tax

- shelter transaction

. ¶2 After considering the briefs and oral arguments, we conclude that the court of appeals did not err and that Arizona courts have jurisdiction over the defendants in this case

. That court ’s opinion respected Arizona’s rule permitting the liberal exercise of personal jurisdiction, see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a) (granting extraterritorial jurisdiction “to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United St ates”), properly extrapolated from this C ourt’s opinion in Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd. , 226 Ariz. 262, 268 ¶ 25, 270 ¶ 37, 246 P.3d 343, 349, 351 (2011), and otherwise applied the proper tests and analyzed relevant authorities

. S ee Beverage v. Pullman & Comley
, 232 Ariz. 414 , 416

- 21 ¶¶ 3

- 2 8 , 306 P.3d 71 , 73

- 7 8 ( App. 2013). ¶3 We offer one minor clarification

. T he court of appeals observe d that the Pullman defendants “sought Arizona

- specific information” and “used these pieces of Arizona

- based information to craft an opinion letter.” Id. at 420 ¶ 22, 306 P.3d at 77. These contacts are more precisely termed “Arizona

- client

- specific contacts” because they relate not to Arizona, but rather to the Beverages, who were at all relevant times Arizona residents

. For example, the tax opinion letter included information about the parties and entities involved in the Beverages’ tax

shelter transaction, the amounts l oaned and the terms of repayment
, a nd the Beverage s ’ reason for en tering into the transaction. Although th is information is better characterized as “Arizona

- client

- specific” than “Arizona

- specific,” that minor clarification does not alter our conclusion
t hat the court of appeals properly analyzed the defendants’ Arizona
contacts. ¶4 Because we agree with the court of appeals’ jurisdictional analysis, we affirm the opinion of the court of appeals , as clarified

.