the amount demanded in the notice of claim. City of Phoenix v. Fields, No. 1 CA-SA 07-0152, 219 Ariz. 88, 193 P.3d 782, 2008 WL 1796039, at *7, ¶ 19 (Ariz.App. Apr.22, 2008). ¶ 10 Yollin met this requirement. He expressly told Glendale that he would “release the City of Glendale and their agents and employees from any liability associated with th[e] claim” for $150,000.00. While Yollin explained that he was still incurring medical expenses, wage loss and pain and suffering and was willing to negotiate, the terms of the letter were an offer of settlement, and Yollin would have been bound if Glendale had accepted the offer. See Savoca Masonry Co. v. Homes & Son Constr., 112 Ariz. 392, 394, 542 P.2d 817, 819 (1975); Muchesko v. Muchesko, 191 Ariz. 265, 269, 955 P.2d 21, 25 (App.1997) (<HOLDING>). Yollin even stated that, although he was
holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case holding that an attorneyproffered offer may bind the client holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client