Skip to main content

Grant Frazier

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Scottsdale, AZ

Galbut Beabeau PC
6720 N Scottsdale Rd, Suite 305
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Phone: 480-846-0715
Fax: 602-955-1585
Selected to Rising Stars: 2022
Licensed in Arizona Since: 2019
Practice Areas: Business Litigation, Banking, Business/Corporate, Securities & Corporate Finance, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Free Consultation
Attorney Profile

Grant H. Frazier represents clients in business and complex litigation and arbitration matters involving commercial contracts, securities, corporate governance, real estate, construction, partnership disputes, trademark protection, and trusts and estates.  He routinely practices in state and federal courts in Arizona and the Ninth Circuit, and in arbitration proceedings before the AAA and FINRA. He also has experience drafting a range of commercial, corporate, real estate, employment, and estate documents.

Grant leverages his experience in both litigation and transactional matters in the provision of outside general counsel services.  To sharpen his understanding of the intersection of economics, law, and public policy, he completed the highly-competitive Frédéric Bastiat Fellowship.  Grant applies his value-added mindset to help clients with strategic planning, corporate governance, protection of intellectual property rights, positioning of businesses for acquisition, and leveraging emerging technologies in business operations.

A tenacious and trusted advocate, Mr. Frazier strives to protect and promote his clients’ best interests in business and transactional matters. He plays a vital role in helping businesses solve various legal and strategic issues. Once he understands his clients’ challenges, he outlines the available opportunities and plans for long-term success.

Since his second year of practice, Grant has been recognized by Thomson Reuters as a Southwest Super Lawyers® Rising Star in the area of Closely Held Business Law and by Martindale-Hubbell® as a Platinum Client Champion. His scholarly works have been published by Harvard, Georgetown, University of Southern California, Arizona State University, UC Hastings, and other law schools, as well as by Dartmouth and Pomona Colleges.

After receiving his undergraduate degree from Pomona College in Claremont, California, Mr. Frazier obtained his JD from ASU's Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Mr. Frazier was named to the dean’s list for his outstanding academic achievements. He worked as an extern at the Veterans Legal Institute, the California Court of Appeal for the 4th District, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. 

Mr. Frazier is admitted to practice before the State Bar of Arizona, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona. He is a member of the Arizona Civil Rights Advisory Board, the Phoenix Committee on Foreign Relations, the Federalist Society’s Phoenix Lawyers Chapter, and the Center for Law and Military Policy. He is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Claremont Colleges Rugby Program.

Practice Areas
  • 20%Business Litigation
  • 20%Banking
  • 20%Business/Corporate
  • 20%Securities & Corporate Finance
  • 10%Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • 10%Mergers & Acquisitions
Focus Areas

Trade Secret, Non-Compete Agreements, Business Formation and Planning, Limited Liability Companies, Partnership, Sub-chapter S Corporations, Contracts, Business Organizations, Securities Law, Arbitration, Mediation

Selections

1 Years Rising Stars
  • Rising Stars: 2022

About Grant Frazier

First Admitted: 2019, Arizona

Professional Webpage: https://www.gb.law/attorneys/grant-h-frazier/

Newsletters

Bar/Professional Activity

  • State Bar of Arizona
  • United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona
  • United States District Court, District of Arizona

Pro bono/Community Service

  • Arizona Civil Rights Advisory Board (ACRAB) (Member), Arizona Attorney General's Office
  • Center for Law and Military Policy (Secretary and Member, Board of Directors)
  • ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Member, Advisory Council)
  • Claremont Colleges Rugby Program (Chairman, Board of Directors; Director of Development)
  • Journal for Law, Policy & Military Affairs (Attorney Editor)
  • Phoenix Committee on Foreign Relations (Member)
  • Federalist Society, Phoenix Lawyers Chapter (Member)
  • Pomona College Admissions Department (Alumni Admissions Interviewer)
  • Provide pro bono services focused on veteran populations, 2022
  • Provide pro bono services focused on veteran populations, 2021
  • Provide pro bono services focused on veteran populations, 2020
  • Provide pro bono services focused on veteran populations, 2019
  • Provided 976 hours of pro bono services during law school, focusing on veteran and homeless populations. Second most pro bono hours in graduating class.

Educational Background

  • Graduated from Pomona College with a B.A. in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, 2016

Scholarly Lectures/Writings

  • Technological innovation is a fundamental driver of economic productivity and human progress. While foundational U.S. economic and legal principles effectively catalyze American innovation, they do not adequately account for technological progress outpacing regulators’ ability to control for associated negative externalities.Emerging technologies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution show fundamental promise for improving the means of production and quality of life, but may also cause significant social disruption—including via sophisticated cyberattacks; automation-driven labor-displacement; and the corruption of human and pathogenic gene elements. In many instances, only specialists understand the underlying technical processes. This results in a knowledge gap for legislators—who are tasked with drafting effective policy frameworks, and judges—who are tasked with interpreting and applying these frameworks to ever-more complicated technologies, the details of which are important to arriving at the correct legal outcome.This is not the first time the U.S. legal system has been challenged to adapt its tort doctrines to respond to the societal risks of innovation. A central assumption of these adaptations has been that civil liability controls for the disruptive effect of technology by reapportioning costs to those best suited to avoid them, while correcting for instances in which good faith care-taking efforts nonetheless fall short. Our Article proposes a heuristic method for assessing coherent liability frameworks to optimize liability policymaking for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This method utilizes variables of economic and legal significance from precedential regulation, and is applied herein to contemporary legal issues associated with Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing to demonstrate the method’s efficacy., Co-Author, The Ratio Method: A Heuristic Approach to Addressing Complex Tort Liability Frameworks in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, St. Mary's Law Journal, Gene Editing, Law And Economics, Law & Economics, Economics, Artificial Intelligence, AI, Machine Learning, IoT, Internet Of Things, Genetic Editing, Tort, Science, Law, Technology, Emerging Technologies, Regulation, Litigation, Complex Litigation, Mass Tort, 2021
  • Several decades ago, the Arizona Supreme Court first adopted the economic loss rule (“ELR”), which precludes a contracting party from pursuing tort claims for purely economic losses. In doing so, the Court explicitly chose a narrow, context-specific application of the ELR, which it has since reaffirmed in the now- leading case of Flagstaff Affordable Housing Limited Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc. But the Flagstaff Affordable Housing court’s unclear treatment of the agent and/or fiduciary relationship between architects and homeowners has injected ambiguity into subsequent application, despite the court’s recognition that the ELR should not serve as a bar to fiduciary duty claims sounding in tort. This Article provides an overview of the foregoing and contends that Arizona courts should continue in their narrow application of the ELR by treating the relationship between architects and homeowners the same way that they treat the agency and/or fiduciary relationships between other professionals and clients. Specifically, where an architect’s professional duties do not exist “but for” the actual architect agreement, but rather arise from common law, such duties are not superseded by an architect agreement except under exceptionally narrow circumstances., Co-Author, When the Rule Invites the Exceptions: How the Arizona Supreme Court's Attempt to Clarify the Economic Loss Rule in Flagstaff Affordable Housing Has Led to Discontinuity in Subsequent Application, Barry Law Review, Torts, Economic Loss Rule, Economic Loss Doctrine, Litigation, Arizona, Economic Loss, Fiduciary Duty, Professional Duty, Architect, Construction, Contract, Tort, 2021
  • The U.S. faces an increasingly complicated set of national security and economic threats. Chief among these are: (1) increasingly sophisticated and damaging cyber-attacks that threaten national security; harm government institutions, for-profit enterprises (including defense contractors), and institutions of higher learning; and undermine the country’s system of property rights; and (2) rising levels of national debt held by foreign competitors.China poses the greatest threat in both regards. China’s government carries out, organizes, and/or facilitates cyber-attacks to misappropriate intellectual property with serious consequences to the U.S.’s national security and economy. China also has acquired significant holdings in U.S. government issued debt instruments. Mounting U.S. government debt restricts annual federal government budgetary decisions, negatively affects the U.S.’s international standing as a borrower, and threatens national security by giving foreign debt holders, such as China, potential leverage in foreign relations negotiations.No policy prescription to date has achieved meaningful and lasting success in addressing these threats, and there are indications the threats are only worsening. The National Trade Secret Protection and Remedy Strategy (“NTSPS”) policy prescription proposed by this Article addresses the cyber attack and federal debt threats in a way that links and transforms them from vulnerabilities into leverage to protect the U.S.’s national security, system of property rights, and future economic well-being.Specifically, the U.S. government should pursue trade secret theft-related litigation and remedies against the Chinese government and its surrogates in U.S. federal courts. The proposed NTSPS would: (a) create a specific, limited government property interest in intellectual property developed under government defense contracts; (b) create extra-territorial jurisdiction for the U.S. government and personal jurisdiction over foreign nations that engage in trade secret misappropriation either directly, or indirectly through state-supported or enabled entities or persons; and (c) provide for ready availability of pre-judgment remedies, such as attachment and liens to secure the government’s remedy, and satisfaction of judgement through execution on U.S. debt held instruments held by the mis-appropriator — in this case, China. Successful implementation of the NTSPS would require amendments to several existing federal statutes and defense contracting regulations and procedures.Implementing the NTSPS strategy will allow the U.S. federal government to: (1) compensate itself and U.S.-based companies for the damages each has suffered as the result of Chinese-led or sponsored cyber-attacks; (2) deter future Chinese cyber-attacks by conveying a strong message that the U.S. will take meaningful action in response to said attacks; (3) slow the advancement of Chinese military technology by forcing China to internalize the significant research and development expenses incurred by the U.S. to develop the technological capabilities often targeted by cyber espionage initiatives; (4) significantly reduce U.S. debt and consequently the restrictions and burdens it places on the U.S. economy and national defense capability; and (5) pare down the financial leverage China holds over the U.S. in foreign relations., Co-Author, Taming the Paper Tiger: Deterring Chinese Economic Cyber Espionage and Remediating Damage to U.S. Interests Caused by Such Attacks, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Trade Secrets, ITAR, DFAR, Litigation, Federal Debt, National Debt, Credit, Debt, Intellectual Property, National Security, International Law, Economic Espionage, Espionage, Cyber Espionage, Cyber Attacks, Cyber-Attacks, Cyber, Defense, 2021
  • Arizona’s position as a leader in economic freedom has made it one of the United States’ most business-friendly states, resulting in a relatively sustained economic boom over the last 30 years.  Post-recession success is at least partially due to the state’s deregulation and pro-technology development policies.  Unfortunately, technology development in Arizona and across the country is often still stunted by a complicated, laborious web of federal regulations.  Federal and state leaders can work cooperatively to lower regulatory barriers to innovation and supercharge the economy.  Current Arizona Governor Doug Ducey’s administration has done an admirable job of encouraging legislation that addresses both these needs.  One notable example is the Regulatory Sandbox—a pro-growth, pro-technology, and pro-competition program aimed at attracting increased out-of-state investment and high-paying technology jobs.  The Sandbox enables an approved business limited access to the Arizona consumer market to test innovative FinTech and RegTech products and services without first having to obtain otherwise applicable authorizations to operate, such as a business license.  This program promises to be an unparalleled opportunity for Arizona to help secure the state’s technological and financial future, while strengthening consumer safeguards and economic liberty.  However, for the benefits of sandbox-like programs to be fully realized, federal agencies will need to participate in regulatory coordination with state agencies.  This will require federal agencies to exercise their exemptive authority, to ensure Sandbox participants are not burdened by federal regulations that are redundant of exempted state regulations.  If such coordination is achieved, innovation should truly flourish. This article describes how the Sandbox works, the reasons for its creation, why regulatory coordination is imperative to unlocking the Sandbox’s full innovation-generating potential, and the ways in which federal agencies can exercise their exemptive authority to facilitate this increased innovation and economic growth., Co-Author, Regulatory Sandboxes: How Federal Agencies Can Take Part in Cooperative Federalism and Catalyze Innovation and Economic Growth Through Exercise of Their Exemptive Authority, Dartmouth Law Journal, Fintech, Science And Technology, 2020
  • The sharp housing market decline leading up to the 2008 Great Recession highlighted the high risks associated with subprime debt instruments.  What began in 2006 as a disruption in mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) and collateralized debt obligations (“CDO”) markets quickly developed into the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression.  The questionable practices employed by many financial institutions to create, market, and sell the risk-laden MBS and CDO investment instruments to purchasers aggressively seeking greater returns led to a wave of regulatory inquiries, securities litigation, and legislative and regulatory action by federal and state authorities.  Despite these efforts to mitigate the risks posed by these sub-prime investments, similarly marketed and utilized investment vehicles now pose comparable risks for investors on an individual level and for the U.S. financial system in the aggregate.  The most notable of these risky investments are non-exchange traded real estate investment trusts (“Non-Traded REITs”).  With many financial experts predicting an economic downturn in 2020, the exposure created by high-risk, illiquid Non-Traded REITs and other similar investment realized is likely to realized in the form of significant financial losses. This article explains the nature of Non-Traded REITs; the risk characteristics of Non-Traded REITs that increase the likelihood of losses and securities litigation; the likely targets of Non-Traded REIT-related securities actions; and the claims for relief most likely to be asserted., Co-Author, A Sleight of Hand: Why Non-Traded Real Estate Investment Trusts are Becoming an Increasingly Frequent Subject of Securities Litigation and Arbitration,, Corporate and Business Law Journal, Investment Management, Consumers, Real Estate, Brokers, Securities, 2020
  • In today’s highly contentious judicial confirmation process, the American Bar Association—hardly a disinterested party—takes it upon itself to evaluate the qualifications of federal judicial nominees. The Senate often relies heavily on these evaluations, despite anecdotal evidence and empirical research showing strong political bias. In an effort to reduce partisan obstructionism and mischaracterization of judicial nominees’ records, this Article proposes a change to the Senate’s process for providing advice and consent to the President for the confirmation of Supreme Court justices. We begin by analyzing the original meaning of the advice and consent process envisioned by the Appointments Clause. Then, we look at the contemporary judicial appointment process. Finally, we propose the creation of a non-partisan special judicial council, which the Senate could utilize in much the same way it currently relies on the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. This judicial council would provide the Senate with an objective, analytical report regarding a nominee’s legal reasoning and writing, allowing senators to rely on information from experts in the qualifications of being a judge—judges themselves—rather than outsourcing that function to members of a trade organization who are themselves not experts on the qualifications in question and who face serious conflicts of interest based on their organization’s political advocacy. , Co-Author, A Case for Circumscribed Judicial Evaluation in the Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 2020
  • Football is currently facing a “concussion epidemic” with no fix-all solution in sight. “You got your bell rung, that’s all!” “Shake out the cobwebs!” Coaches and medical experts alike have commonly made comments like these on football fields across the country. While the intent of such “encouragement” is usually to challenge young athletes to toughen up and learn to persevere through adversity—to become better versions of themselves—what these comments really portray is a dark story of our society’s misunderstanding about, and mishandling of, brain injuries and their associated health consequences. There is no better example of this mishandling than the NFL’s past management of the concussion epidemic. After recent advances in neurological knowledge have revealed the devastating short and long-term consequences of concussions, the NFL now finds itself scrambling to mitigate the threat being posed to what makes the NFL, and football in general, so popular—the gladiator-esque nature of the game. High concussion rates threaten to shrink the NFL’s talent pool, erode public support, decrease viewership (and consequently advertising and TV revenue), and expose the NFL to significant employment-related legal liability. While some of the NFL’s responses to date hold promise for helping to mitigate the concussion epidemic, they are nonetheless inadequate because a fix-all is unlikely to be developed soon, if ever. As such, this article argues the NFL should commit, through their collective bargaining agreement, to developing (1) genetic screening techniques that will inform players if they are acutely susceptible to substandard concussion recovery outcomes and long-term effects; (2) diagnostic tests that enable objective confirmation of concussion occurrence and recovery (or lack thereof); and (3) pre-mortem testing for concussion-related neurological diseases such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). A genuine commitment to these initiatives will not only accelerate the innovation of concussion epidemic-mitigating technologies, but also ensure the NFL is providing its players with the necessary information for them to properly “assume the risk” of playing football., Author, Using Your Head: A Different Approach to Tackling the NFL’s Concussion Epidemic, Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, Sports And Entertainment, Labor Unions, neuroscience, Science And Technology, 2019
  • Gene editing is a type of genetic engineering that enables scientists to change an organism’s DNA by adding, removing, or altering genetic material at particular locations in the human genome. While these editing technologies are in their infancy, they hold great promise for future applications. They also raise many moral, ethical, and legal questions. Fast forward 10 years. In utero gene editing is effective, safe, and inexpensive (or covered by insurance). A couple with strong religious views against gene editing decides to procreate despite knowing, via family history, they are both homozygous dominant for the allele that causes Huntington’s disease (an autosomal dominant disease), and therefore the child will have a 100% likelihood of inheriting the disease (barring a highly unlikely, unforeseen mutation eliminating the inherited disorder). The couple undergoes genetic testing of the fetus, which confirms the fetus is homozygous dominant for Huntington’s disease. The couple’s physician recommends a gene editing treatment to “fix” the fetus’s genes. The couple declines the treatment on religious grounds, knowing full well the spectrum of health risks and symptoms their child will face. The child is born with Huntington’s disease and suffers the expected health issues. Safe post-birth gene therapy for Huntington’s is not available. In a situation like the one above, what liability do parents face if there is a state statute requiring gene editing in circumstances such as these? If there is no such statute, should courts determine that parents have an affirmative duty, via existing common law principles governing “special relationships,” to acquiesce to these procedures during pregnancy to avoid almost certain postnatal injury? If so, what genetic issues are important enough for this affirmative duty to be imposed? What criminal liability do parents potentially face under existing causes of action? What types of civil actions might the affected child bring against his or her parent(s)? Does the state or the child even have the standing to bring a suit? If the standing requirement is met, how might courts reconcile parents’ potential affirmative duty to acquiesce to gene editing treatment with parents’ constitutionally-based arguments in opposition (e.g., free exercise of religion, privacy rights under Roe v. Wade and its progeny, etc.)? These questions, and related topics, are addressed below., Author, Defusing a Ticking Time Bomb: The Complicated Considerations Underlying Compulsory Human Gene Editing, Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal, Science And Technology, 2019
  • Publishing As A Law Student, Corporate and Business Law Journal & Arizona Sports and Entertainment Law Journal
  • E-Contracts and E-Signatures: Applicable Law, Enforceability Factors, and Risk-Benefit Analysis of Utilization, Maricopa County Bar Association Annual Conference
  • Decentralized Finance & Regulation, Desert Blockchain

Honors/Awards

  • , Rising Star – Closely Held Business Law, Southwest Super Lawyers®, 2022
  • The Generation Liberty Fellowship brings together individuals from a wide range of fields including academia, tech, medicine, finance, marketing, law, and more, seeking to address the challenges in the states from a wide variety of perspectives and efforts, such as grassroots activists, public interest litigators, professionals working in single-issue advocacy organizations, and individuals addressing issues through community-based organizations., Generation Liberty Fellowship, State Policy Network (SPN), 2022
  • Recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service., Platinum Client Champion, Martindale Hubbell®, 2022
  • The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is one of the country’s foremost public policy think tanks, and its scholars produce thought leadership in a myriad of policy areas, including economics, foreign and defense studies, health care, poverty studies, education, society and culture, and technology and innovation. The Millennial Leadership Network program is AEI’s exclusive and competitive policy education and professional development program for state-based, mid-career executives in the public, private, and non-profit sectors. The program accepts only 80 individuals from across the United States every year, and aims to connect professionally and ideologically diverse leaders who hold a shared interest in the advancement of effective public policy that increases opportunity for all Americans and helps create the conditions for greater human flourishing., Millennial Leadership Network Cohort, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), 2022
  • Recognize those attorneys who excel at service as affirmed by their clients. The awards, based on the quantity and quality of an attorney’s Martindale-Hubbell client reviews, demonstrate an ongoing commitment to delivering excellent client service., Platinum Client Champion, Martindale Hubbell®, 2021
  • The Pegasus School's Wings of Honor Alumni Award seeks to recognize alumni who display commendable character and dedication to the values and mission of The Pegasus School. Those who are selected for this award are soaring academically, philanthropically, and professionally., Wings of Honor Alumni Award, The Pegasus School, 2021
  • Gold Client Champion, Martindale Hubbell®, 2021
  • , Peer Reviewed, Martindale Hubbell®, 2021
  • , Gold Client Champion, Martindale Hubbell®, 2020
  • , Who's Who in America, 2020
  • The Frédéric Bastiat Fellowship is a one-year, competitive fellowship program awarded to graduate students attending master’s, juris doctoral, and doctoral programs in a variety of fields including economics, law, political science, and public policy. The aim of this fellowship is to introduce students to the Austrian, Virginia, and Bloomington schools of political economy as academic foundations for contemporary policy analysis, policy-relevant academic research, and other applied topics., Frédéric Bastiat Fellowship, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2019
  • , Gentleman of the Year Award, Network of Enlightened Women (NeW), 2019
  • ASU Athletics Research Grant awardee, Arizona State University, 2019
  • 2nd Place, ASU Law Ross-Blakely Law Library Exemplary Research Competition, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 2019
  • Dean’s Award for Outstanding Performance at the College of Law, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, 2019
  • An annual award is made to a senior student who exemplifies the high ideals of the College in scholarship, sportsmanship, and organized athletic pursuits., Blair Nixon Memorial Award, Pomona College, 2016
  • Given each year to a senior who best combines achievement in athletics, academics, leadership and sportsmanship., John Zinda Award, Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SCIAC), 2015
  • , Scott Studenmund Award, Pomona College, 2015

Industry Groups

  • Agriculture
  • And More
  • Construction
  • Distribution
  • Finance
  • Financial Services
  • Food Industry
  • Healthcare
  • Hospitality
  • Insurance
  • Investment
  • Manufacturing
  • Professional Services
  • Real Estate
  • Retail
  • Technology
Show More
Office Location for Grant Frazier

6720 N Scottsdale Rd
Suite 305
Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Phone: 480-846-0715

Fax: 602-955-1585

Last Updated: 6/23/2022

Page Generated: 0.16212010383606 sec