In Arizona, it is the rule that parties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled to recover attorney fees. Lisa v. Strom, 183 Ariz. 415, 419-20, 904 P.2d 1239, 1243-44 (App. 1995); Hunt Inv. Co. v. Eliot, 154 Ariz. 357, 362, 742 P.2d 858, 863 (App. 1987); Connor v. Cal-AZ Props., Inc., 137 Ariz. 53, 56, 668 P.2d 896, 899 (App. 1983). Farwest contends that, under this rule, Munger Chadwick was not eligible for an award of fees because it represented itself. A number of jurisdictions do not apply this rule where an attorney, as opposed to a lay person, represents him-or herself. See: Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. Sheehan, 852 P.2d 1173, 1181 (Alaska 1993); Winer v. Jonal Corp., 169 Mont. 247, 545 P.2d 1094, 1096-97 (Mont. 1976); Weaver v. Laub, 1977 OK 242, 574 P.2d 609, 613 (Okla. 1977); Colby v. Gunson, 349 Ore. 1, 238 P.3d 374, 376 (Or. 2010). But Munger Chadwick has not challenged the wisdom of this rule generally, only its application to the facts of this case. Furthermore, although our supreme court has not squarely addressed recovery of attorney fees for pro se attorney litigants, it has stated that "one who acts only for himself in legal matters is not . . . practicing law." State ex rel. Frohmiller v. Hendrix, 59 Ariz. 184, 190, 124 P.2d 768, 772 (1942). To the extent this statement supports upholding the rule forbidding awards of attorney fees to all pro se litigants, this court "is bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and has no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them." City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc., 177 Ariz. 375, 378, 868 P.2d 958, 961 (App. 1993).