ruled on is deemed denied by operation of law.”). We review the ruling for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 480, 917 P.2d 200, 209 (1996). ¶ 39 Forde argues that the bar complaints placed the attorneys and Forde in adversarial roles that created a conflict of interest in violation of Ethical Rule (“ER”) 1.7(a)(2), which prohibits representation when “there is a significant risk that the representation ... will be materially limited by the lawyer’s ... personal interest.” Because Forde did not file or authorize the bar complaints, however, she did not have an adversarial relationship with her attorneys. And even if Forde had filed the complaints, the court was not required to remove her attorneys. See State v. Henry, 189 Ariz. 542, 549, 944 P.2d 57, 64 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Notably, nothing indicated a significant risk
holding contribution claim against attorney not contrary to illinois public policy holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding that the economic loss rale did not bar banks claim against mortgagors attorney for negligent misrepresentation where there was no contract between the bank and the attorney holding that for public policy reasons the mere filing of a bar complaint by a defendant against his attorney does not mandate removal of the attorney holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term