FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].



Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas
 

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules

                

 

Welcome!

 

This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE READ: 

Contact Information

Please include all of your contact information when submitting a rule petition or comment.  Otherwise, your submission may be rejected and we will be unable to advise you as to why. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 02 Oct 2024 06:15 PM by  yfox
R-24-0046 PETITION TO AMEND RULE 53, RULES OF THE AZ SUPREME COURT
 16 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
amcqueen
New Member
Posts:30 New Member

--
25 Apr 2024 06:38 PM
    David K. Byers
    Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3301
    [email protected]

    Petitioner seeks an amendment to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 53, to establish a standing requirement to be considered a complainant in discipline proceedings. In the past, few charges concerning attorneys were submitted for investigation by individuals unrelated to the underlying events. During the past several years, however, charges have been submitted by individuals based on second-hand information, such as news reports. The proposed amendment seeks to balance any positive impact of this increased scrutiny of attorney conduct while reserving procedural protections for those more directly involved.

    Petitioner asks for expedited consideration so the petition may be heard in August and, if approved, adopted on a preliminary basis with consideration for permanent adoption heard in December.

    Filed: April 25, 2024

    Would amend Rule 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona to impose a standing requirement to qualify as a complainant in a Bar disciplinary proceeding.

    Comments due no later than May 31, 2024, and any reply by petitioner is due no later than June 17, 2024.

    Comments due no later than October 1, 2024, and any reply due no later than October 15, 2024.
    Attachments
    Dianne_Post
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    09 May 2024 05:37 PM
    We write in opposition to the Rule change proposed in Petition R-24-0046.

    It is important to the administration of justice and the Rule of Law as enforced through our judicial system that the legal profession remain relatively autonomous and self-regulating.

    The duty of members of the State Bar of Arizona to report apparent ethical and professional misconduct by fellow attorneys is an important aspect of the legal profession’s relative autonomy and self-regulation. Watering down and restricting this aspect of self-regulation of the Bar as proposed in Petition R-24-0046 is dangerous because the rule change it proposes would erode the already-declining confidence in Arizona lawyers and in our system of justice and thereby will take a bite out of the Rule of Law and the judicial branch of government of our Constitutional democracy.

    The proposed new Rule 53(a) would limit standing to file Bar charges to an individual or entity that has “an attorney-client relationship with the respondent, direct and specific first-hand knowledge of the conduct described in the charge, or they became aware of the conduct in their role as a judicial officer.” This would do harm to no good end.

    Arizona Supreme Court Rule 42, Ethics Rule 8.3, entitled “Reporting Professional Misconduct” provides that “A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority, except as otherwise provided in these Rules or by law.”

    The Comment to this Rule, at paragraph [1] notes that “Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct….An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover.”

    The Comment at paragraph [3] notes that a lawyer is not obligated to report every violation, only “those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. … The term ‘substantial’ refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware.”

    These qualifiers are sufficient to deter lawyers from presenting frivolous charges of alleged misconduct by their fellow lawyers. Lawyers who submit frivolous charges themselves can be subject to discipline. Such discipline is the means by which to prevent the speculative suggestion in the Petition that the disciplinary process could become “weaponized by partisans.” Moreover, concern about the appearance of that occurring could be addressed by publicizing the ability to discipline lawyers who file frivolous Bar charges and by actually imposing discipline if and when warranted. No restriction on standing is necessary or appropriate.

    The fact that there has been, in recent years, an unusually high volume of reports of misconduct by lawyers practicing law in Arizona - both by those who are members of the State Bar of Arizona, and those appearing pro hac vice in Arizona - is not a reason to dilute this rule by adding a new standing provision to Rule 53. Indeed, this is precisely the reason not to dilute it.

    If non-lawyers or those not subject to regulation under the Arizona State Bar are filing a high number of complaints, either those complaints have validity because of the failure of the State Bar to take appropriate action against lawyer misconduct, in which case the complaints should be filed, or organized and/or political groups are seeking to “weaponize” the system against political philosophies they don’t agree with. If the latter is the case, the solution is not to punish those filing valid complaints but may not know how to investigate beyond news reports (nor is that their duty) but to reject those efforts to attack the Rule of Law. The State Bar could do so by expeditiously dismissing non-meritorious complaints filed for political purposes, and by communicating to the public via the news media the fact that certain individuals or groups are misusing the Bar complaint process improperly for political purposes. It is after all the duty of lawyers to protect the Rule of Law without which we do not have a democracy or a republic or even a profession.

    Beginning in November of 2020, the undersigned attorneys complied with our duty under ER 8.3 to report alleged misconduct and violations of the Ethics Rules in Rule 42 and the Professionalism Rule in Rule 41 that we initially came to be aware of via news reports, and that we later verified by reviewing pleadings and other court records, including court orders, as well as transcripts of statements made in open court. That alleged misconduct was committed by attorneys representing candidates for political office who engaged in frivolous litigation without any factual or legal basis, including some frivolous litigation that allegedly was part of a conspiracy associated with the insurrection that occurred on January 6, 2021 which some view as an attempted coup to overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election for President of the United States. We are informed and believe that a number of other similar charges were submitted to the State Bar of Arizona by others relating to the same or related serious misconduct. We do not know whether judicial officers reported this misconduct to the State Bar, nor do we have any way of knowing that.

    Because one of us was a member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona, the charges we submitted were referred to Independent Bar Counsel. Some of the charges were investigated and dismissed. Others resulted in discipline. We understand from the Administrative Office of the Courts that the remainder of these investigations have been closed, though we have not been provided information as to why.

    We have been informed by the State Bar of Arizona and by the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts himself that the reason the investigations took several years is that there were insufficient resources for Independent Bar Counsel. The Director criticized the attorneys who presented the charges for this problem, complaining that one of us is a member of the Board of Governors which necessitated hiring Independent Bar Counsel. This criticism is misplaced. Far from being considered a problem, it should be considered refreshing and appropriate that a leader of the State Bar is complying with his obligation to report attorney misconduct.

    The solution to the problem of inadequate resources is for the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to adequately staff the office of Independent Bar Counsel so that it is able to conduct investigations expeditiously and appropriately, not to restrict attorneys and others from filing Bar charges. The failure to do so has resulted in the disappointing, indeed frightening, appearance that the Director himself has put his thumb on the scales of justice to deter appropriate investigation and accountability for serious violations of the Ethics Rules committed by partisan attorneys for political purposes.

    As just one example of an unfortunate consequence that would result from the Director’s proposed change to the Rule to impose a standing restriction to file Bar charges, if it is adopted, it is likely that a lawyer engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a client - particularly a vulnerable client such as a victim of domestic violence who is being represented in a divorce proceeding - will be more likely to go unreported. The client herself may too greatly fear retaliation to make a report to the State Bar, and no one else will be authorized to do so. So, the State Bar will be unaware of the misconduct and have no ability to intervene to address it, thus allowing it to continue with respect to the current victim and also enabling future misconduct of the same type. The same could occur with an attorney representing an elderly client, especially one with beginning dementia, with estate planning. The client would never know of or complain about the misconduct but a relative or another attorney might. There are myriad other examples of situations in which this proposed change to the Rule to limit standing to file Bar charges will deter reporting that should be encouraged.

    Adopting this rule would be akin to the state adopting a policy prohibiting people from reporting to law enforcement detectives any crime they did not personally witness or suffer as a victim, as a means to reduce a high volume of criminal cases. A parent told by a child that she had been the victim of sexual assault under that scenario would be prohibited from reporting the alleged crime to have it investigated by law enforcement.

    We also oppose the other aspect of the Petition, which is to restrict the limited transparency that already exists with regards to Bar charges. The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts seeks to substitute the State Bar itself as complainant in order to remove the duty and responsibility of the State Bar or Independent Bar Counsel to provide the true complainant with a copy of the respondent’s initial response to the charge and the resolution of the charge.

    There already is a provision by which a protective order can be entered in specific cases, where there is appropriate justification. There is absolutely no need for a blanket protective rule to be issued covering all cases.

    Lack of transparency undermines faith in the process and thereby undermines faith in lawyers, the judicial system generally, and thus our Constitutional democracy. We believe there already is unduly restricted transparency; there should be more transparency, not less.

    In conclusion, we urge the Court to reject this dangerous Petition that would restrict standing to file Bar charges and would reduce the limited transparency that exists with regards to the response to Bar charges.

    Additionally, we urge the Court to evaluate the circumstances underlying this Petition brought by the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and that the Court assert supervisory authority with respect to appropriate staffing of the Office of Independent Bar Counsel and of the State Bar of Arizona so that both can expeditiously complete investigations of the current volume of Bar charges and can address misconduct appropriately to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, the Bar, and the judicial system that is so vital to our Constitutional democracy.

    Dianne Post, Attorney
    1826 E. Willetta St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85006-3047
    602-271-9019
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    rnassen
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    28 May 2024 07:27 PM
    Petitioner’s stated concern is that “charges have been submitted by individuals based on second-hand information concerning the alleged misconduct,” particularly regarding lawyers involved in election-related litigation or who are themselves running for election as attorney general or a county attorney. Petitioner characterizes this as an improper “weaponization” of the disciplinary process and seeks to address this perceived impropriety by depriving these individuals of the rights that they would otherwise have as complainants under the rules.

    For all the reasons articulated in the comment from Dianne Post, I urge the Court to deny the petition. As the guardians of a self-regulating profession, the Bar and the Arizona Supreme Court must encourage, not discourage, the reporting of perceived or suspected lawyer misconduct. The notion that the filing of a bar charge against a lawyer is an unfair “attack” on that lawyer or a “weaponization” of the process, is a misperception that the Bar and the Supreme Court should seek to correct, not validate. As members of the legal profession, we agree to be answerable to the Bar and the Court regarding such charges. The Bar can and does dispense with meritless charges in an expeditious manner. To combat any "weaponization" of the process, the Bar can also seek a protective order when appropriate and discipline any lawyer who files frivolous bar charges against other lawyers.

    Being the subject of, and having to defend oneself against, charges of misconduct is no fun. But the system isn’t broken simply because some lawyers in high-profile cases might attract more bar charges than others, nor is it broken simply because some of those charges might ultimately be dismissed. It’s no fun to get sued or criminally prosecuted either. But it would be wrong to conclude that the entire justice system is broken just because some defendants get sued more often than others, some plaintiffs lose their lawsuits, and some criminal defendants are acquitted.

    Finally, if a rule change with such significant public implications is to be considered, it should be submitted during the normal rule-amendment cycle under Rule 28 so that there is a truly fair opportunity for robust public comment and debate, and a phasing-in period. This petition was filed on April 25, 2024, more than 3 months after the normal 2024 petition-filing deadline and just one week before the last day to post comments on timely-submitted petitions, and it includes an emergency-enactment request. Yet the perceived problem didn’t just develop over the last 6 months; the petition itself notes that “there have been at least 40 election-related cases submitted since November 2020,” a period of approximately 3-1/2 years. This off-cycle emergency filing could, far from increasing the public’s trust in the disciplinary process and the Court itself, be perceived as politically motivated and protectionist.

    Regina Nassen
    Bar #014574
    [email protected]
    255 W. Alameda, 7th Floor, P.O. Box 27210, Tucson, AZ 85726-7210
    520-837-4207
    garscw
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    29 May 2024 11:33 AM
    From my perspective, the petitioner has not provided sufficient justification for the adoption of this proposed new rule, especially on a temporary emergency basis. Has any other U.S. jurisdiction adopted such a rule or anything similar to it? If so, what language did it use and what justification did it provide for doing so? How is Arizona out of the mainstream concerning standing to be considered a complainant and the rights of complainants? How is "direct and specific first-hand knowledge of the conduct described in the charge" to be determined and by whom? Some refinement of the current rule to address the concerns set forth in the petition may be appropriate, but the current justification for emergency action is lacking, in my opinion.

    George A. Riemer
    Attorney at Law
    23206 N Pedregosa Drive
    Sun City West, AZ 85375
    623-238-5039
    [email protected]
    VicsPicks
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 May 2024 05:23 PM
    I have been an active member of the State Bar for over fifty years, and I believe that approval of Petition R-24-0046 to amend Rule 53 would be a grave mistake. First, the Bar, like many other professions and occupations which require high levels of skills and responsibility, is self-governing and supports its independent status by a system which allows parties inside and outside the Bar to report unethical or improper conduct without having a direct relationship to the party complained about. Second, as responsible members of a democratic society, we are admonished "If you see something, say something," but this amendment sends a message quite the opposite: "If you see something and you are not directly involved, walk away and keep quiet." Third, it is no secret, as every member of the judiciary knows, that the abuse of the legal system to thwart the will of the people as demonstrated in meritless election challenges will continue unabated unless lawyers and of the public have a mechanism to protest the systematic dismantling of our Constitution.

    This proposed amendment is purely political in nature and is intended to eliminate one more mechanism within the State Bar which could be utilized to preserve respect for the law, respect for the vote, and respect for the legal profession. I support all the comments made by others who have expressed opposition to this proposed amendment.

    Victor Aronow
    Bar Number 002764
    P.O. Box 27617
    Tempe, AZ 85285
    [email protected]
    (480) 316-2272
    Wpetersen
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 May 2024 05:35 PM
    Senator Warren Petersen, LD 14
    Arizona State Senate President
    1700 W. Washington
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    602-926-4136
    [email protected]
    State Bar Number: 038830
    Attachments
    ralphadams
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 May 2024 07:16 PM
    I submit this comment as a former Senior Staff Counsel in the Office of Attorney Discipline in Utah (1989 -1991) and a former Senior Bar Counsel for the State Bar of Arizona (1995-2001) and as a lawyer who has for the past twenty three years, devoted my practice to representing lawyers in State Bar matters. I believe this background affords me unique insight into this rule change petition.

    There are three main reasons the Petition should be denied.

    (1) Prior to 1996, the Supreme Court rules regarding attorney discipline prohibited the State Bar of Arizona (State Bar), the respondent lawyer and the complainant from publicly discussing information related to a bar charge. This rule was euphemistically referred to as the “gag rule.” In 1996, this Court recognized that it could not curtail respondents’ and complainants’ First Amendment rights, and therefore eliminated the gag rule as to respondents and complainants. This rule change meant that only the State Bar was prohibited, for administrative purposes, from disseminating information in its file until certain procedural steps were reached during the process. Complainants and Respondents are not similarly prohibited, as this would run afoul of their Constitutional rights. This rule remains in effect to date. See Rule 70, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.

    (2) This Court has repeatedly stated, as have other courts throughout the nation, that the privilege of self-regulation granted to the legal profession, and no other licensed professionals, must remain open and transparent to the public, in order to instill trust in the process. The need for this is self-evident.

    (3) A rushed process is a flawed process.

    DISCUSSION

    The Petition argues that: “When these individuals are treated as complainants, they may be provided access to information that may be otherwise confidential [] and then divulge it publicly before the discipline matter is finalized.” This argument is misleading. All respondents and all complainants have rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to discuss and disseminate the information at issue in a bar charge - unless sealed by protective order. The Petition’s use of the word “confidential” in this setting is misleading in that only the State Bar is restricted from disseminating information during its investigation. Whether or not the complainant has direct knowledge of the events is completely irrelevant. The First Amendment protects complainants’ free speech rights, and only the State Bar is restricted, for administrative purposes, from disseminating information during the process. Thus, unless subject to a protective order, information is not “confidential” except as the State Bar is restricted.

    The Petition also adopts the word “weaponized” to falsely exaggerate an asserted threat. The Petition claims that “at least 40” election-related cases were submitted since November 2020. However, the Petition fails to acknowledge the merit of those charges or the discipline imposed. The Petition also fails to point out that since 2020, the State Bar processed approximately 2300 bar charges each year. In other words, while failing to acknowledge the merits and the discipline imposed, the Petition claims that 40 bar charges, of the over 9,200 in the last four years, is “weaponizing” the disciplinary process. This argument is also false.

    The Petition fails to produce evidence of any adverse effect of the current rule. Even assuming, arguendo, that 40 bar charges of approximately 9,200 results in an insurmountable burden for the State Bar, the proposed rule change does nothing to curtail the number of bar charges. Instead, it proposes to change only who becomes the named complainant. In other words, the proposed rule change does nothing to reduce the number of bar charges filed related to election cases, its purported aim. On the other hand, an untended consequence may be that the overall number of charges submitted to the State Bar may be reduced, to the detriment of the integrity of the lawyer discipline system.

    While changing nothing about the number of bar charges filed, the proposed rule accomplishes at least one completely unacceptable result: secrecy and lack of public oversight of the State Bar. Consistent with the Court’s long-standing policy in favor of an open and transparent discipline system, the current rules provide complainants the right to object and appeal when the State Bar dismisses a bar charge after investigation. The recent case involving former Deputy County Attorney Juan Martinez is only one example of the dire need for such oversight. In that case, the State Bar dismissed the bar charge after “completing” its investigation (State Bar File 17-0624). My former law partner, Karen Clark, appealed the dismissal to the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee (ADPCC), which then reversed the State Bar’s dismissal and ordered the State Bar to further investigate it. After that order, Mr. Martinez was ultimately disbarred. Absent the required notice of the State Bar’s dismissal provided to the complainant in that matter, the State Bar’s dismissal would have remained as the final determination, and a lawyer who fully deserved the ultimate sanction of disbarment would have continued to practice law with impunity.

    Petitioner requests that the Petition be granted “[] expedited consideration and emergency temporary adoption…”The only basis for this as stated in the Petition is that the “upcoming election cycle and media coverage may again see numerous allegations submitted by those not directly involved in the alleged misconduct.” The fallacy of this argument is demonstrated not only by the hyperbole but by the fact that the rush to adopt a rule this important precludes the open participation, prior to adoption, by members of the Bar and public who may not be aware of this Petition. Providing a mere 30 days for comment prior to the requested “preliminary” adoption is far too little time for such a far-reaching and radical change to the self-regulation function of the lawyer discipline system. Especially when many, if not the majority, of Arizona lawyers – and non-lawyer citizens alike – are completely unaware of this rule change Petition. A rush to adopt the proposed rule is both unwise and completely unwarranted.

    CONCLUSION

    The Petition is flawed and misleading, and fails to state a legitimate case for eliminating the current rule. This Court has fully recognized that an open disciplinary process is absolutely necessary.

    There is no good reason to grant the Petition and ample reason not to. The Petition should be denied.

    Ralph Adams
    Bar No. 015599 (retired in September 2023 and currently on inactive status)
    68-1916 Lina Poepoe
    Waikoloa, HI 96738
    (602)799-1353
    yfox
    Basic Member
    Posts:240 Basic Member

    --
    30 May 2024 11:57 AM
    Amelia Craig Cramer
    1 W. Broadway Blvd., Apt. 504
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    [email protected]
    (520) 401-6314
    Attachments
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 May 2024 09:27 PM
    Matthew E. Kelley (037353)
    David J. Bodney (006065)
    Ballard Spahr LLP
    1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    (602) 798-5400
    Attachments
    amcqueen
    New Member
    Posts:30 New Member

    --
    17 Jun 2024 02:28 PM
    David K. Byers
    Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3301
    [email protected]

    Petitioner hereby files its Reply to the comments.
    Attachments
    Dianne_Post
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    20 Sep 2024 04:53 PM
    Dianne Post
    1826 E Willetta St
    Phoenix, AZ 85006-3047
    602 271 9019
    [email protected]
    Bar No 006141

    Additional comments in response to the re-opening of the comment period.
    Attachments
    M.P. Kane
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Sep 2024 04:47 PM
    I oppose this rule change (R-24-0046) and believe it would have unintended consequences that could harm vulnerable members of the public and exacerbate distrust of our profession. The proposed rule change would make named litigants (and no other observers, lawyers, or unnamed but interested parties) the only persons who are permitted to report a suspected misuse of the legal system, unscrupulous conduct, or even just ignorance of rules or law by a licensed attorney. Family members of an elderly adult, a person under a guardianship or conservatorship, or a person involved in a competency hearing could suffer. Moreover, lawyers, who have an obligation to report misconduct by their colleagues, would have their hands tied. Would they be subject to disciplinary action for failure to report conduct that might harm the public? Will mandatory reporting rules also change?
    In short, the rule change seems inadequately thought through and more harmful than helpful. I urge the Court to reject it.

    Maureen P. Kane
    Attorney (retired) #015837
    2659 N. El Dorado Pl.
    Chandler, AZ 85224
    480-899-2948
    [email protected]
    amcqueen
    New Member
    Posts:30 New Member

    --
    27 Sep 2024 06:21 PM
    Posting on behalf of Cynthia Couture
    16831 N Paradox Dr.
    Fountain Hills, AZ. 85268
    480-334-0565
    [email protected]

    I’m a non-lawyer. It’s crucial that LAWYERS be able to report any unethical behavior they see, whether they are the lawyer on the case or not. An attorney will know the rules—what is ethical and what is not; what is harmful to clients and cases and what is not. Those of us who are members of the public and untrained in the law are at the mercy of lawyers. We would not know the rules; we need someone who knows the rules to police the legal profession. Just as I would not attempt to call out a bad surgeon because I don’t know that profession, I could not call out an unethical lawyer because I don’t know that profession. I ask you to reverse this ruling.
    garscw
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    30 Sep 2024 12:14 PM
    Response to emergency adoption of amendment to Supreme Court Rule 53, Rule Petition R-24-0046

    To recap, the petitioner proposed restricting the rights afforded complainants under the rules to a limited set of individuals or entities (in an attorney-client relationship, with direct and specific first-hand knowledge of alleged misconduct, or judicial officers who become aware of alleged misconduct). Any other individual or entity will not be considered a complainant though the state bar can itself be considered a complainant if it decides to do so.

    The rationale for the new rule (approved by the Court on an emergency basis) was that individuals and entities without an attorney-client relationship or direct and specific first-hand knowledge of alleged misconduct were apparently submitting complaints about lawyers involved in election proceedings solely for partisan reasons. “ . . . submissions concerning election-related litigation create a risk of the disciplinary process being weaponized by partisans or the appearance of that occurring.” Page 3 of original petition.

    While the petitioner cited 40 election-related complaints submitted since November 2020, he provided no information about how any of them created a risk of the disciplinary process being weaponized by partisans or the appearance of that occurring. He provided no definition of who he considered to be a partisan or information as to when a complaint was being used as a weapon to do something nefarious or otherwise improper. And no mention is made that a person or entity that had direct and specific first-hand knowledge of alleged misconduct could be a partisan seeking to weaponize the disciplinary process against a lawyer in an election case. It makes no sense to deem a person or entity without direct and specific first-hand knowledge a partisan without the rights of a complainant while granting a partisan with direct and specific first-hand knowledge the rights of a complainant. Filing a complaint based on other than direct and specific first-hand knowledge does not make you a partisan; being partisan makes you a partisan. No effort is made to preclude all partisans from being deemed complainants under the rules. The new rule has created a category of partisans that has nothing to do with partisanship. It is especially concerning that this new rule’s rationale is based on even an appearance of a risk of weaponization of the disciplinary process.

    The petitioner provided no information from any other U.S. jurisdiction that supported the changes he advocated. His reference to Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 1.06(G)(2) (footnote 1 on page 3 of his supplement) needs context. That rule sets forth a broad range of individuals and entities that are considered eligible to be complainants with the rights afforded complainants under the Texas rules. That broad range includes prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, court staff members, or jurors in the legal matter that is the subject of the grievance and any other person who has a cognizable individual interest in or connection to the legal matter or facts alleged in the grievance. Under the emergency rule adopted by the Court, none of these individuals or entities are considered complainants unless they have or had an attorney-client relationship with the respondent or direct and specific first-hand knowledge of the conduct described in the charge. Absent that relationship or direct and specific first-hand knowledge, they are deemed not to deserve the rights of complainants because of a predetermined fear of even an appearance that any complaint they file is from a partisan seeking to weaponize the disciplinary process against lawyers.

    In my view, the Court has acceded to unsubstantiated claims of harassment of lawyers in election cases due to allegedly baseless allegations of professional misconduct. Alleged partisanship is a two-way street. If the Court is adopting rules based on appearances, this rule appears to be a sub silentio partisan device to prevent those with legitimate complaints from obtaining information about their disposition. The disciplinary process should be as open and neutral as possible to ensure public trust in it. This rule change is not warranted under the rationale and lack of evidence used to support it.

    Other states have dealt with the issue of frivolous complaints by adopting vexatious grievant rules. Individuals or entities that are proven to have repeatedly filed frivolous complaints can, with due process, be precluded from filing additional complaints or having their rights as complainants restricted in other ways. See, for example, Washington Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 5.1(e) and Rule of Procedure of the State Bar of California 2605. Petitioner makes no mention of this option in his petition or supplement. Rather than arbitrarily restricting the rights of “partisan” complainants, these rules address the issue of frivolous complaining on a case-by-case basis with due process before a person or entity is deemed a frivolous grievant.

    In his supplement (page 5), petitioner asserts that no explanation has been provided for affording the rights of complainants to those with only second-hand knowledge of alleged lawyer misconduct. He fails to mention that the rule prior to this amendment provided exactly that. At one time the Court deemed it appropriate to do so. Petitioner’s basis for eliminating what the prior rule allowed is an evidence-light “risk of the disciplinary process being weaponized by partisans or the appearance of that occurring.” Page 3 of original petition.

    As to the issue raised by petitioner that complainants will improperly disclose information that would otherwise to confidential (see original petition at page 3: “When [individuals not directly involved in the underlying case] are treated as complainants, they may be provided access to information that may otherwise be confidential until the conclusion of the investigation and then divulge it publicly before the discipline matter is finalized.”). Supreme Court Rule 70(d) provides, “Unless otherwise ordered by the committee, the presiding disciplinary judge, a hearing panel, or this court, nothing in these rules shall prohibit the complainant, respondent, or any witness from disclosing the existence of proceedings under these rules or from disclosing any documents or correspondence served on or provided to those persons.” No evidence has been provided that the state bar was unable to address by protective order the improper disclosure of confidential information under the prior version of Rule 53(a). If the rule change was approved to address the fact that those now excluded from complainant status were incentivized to seek out the role of complainant to gain access to otherwise confidential information under the former rule, where is the evidence to support it?

    As the Court did in Rule Petition R-24-0028, this emergency rule should be referred to the Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee for further study and recommendation before the Court considers whether to adopt it on a permanent basis or whether other, fairer, options should be implemented. Lawyer regulation is for the protection of the public. The disciplinary process is fully capable of screening out frivolous complaints in as expeditious a way possible while ensuring transparency in how it does so.

    George A. Riemer
    Attorney at Law
    State Bar of Arizona No. 017034
    23206 N Pedregosa Drive
    Sun City West, AZ 85375
    623-238-5039
    [email protected]
    garscw
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    01 Oct 2024 01:53 PM
    Additional Comments.

    George A. Riemer
    Attorney at Law
    State Bar of Arizona No. 017034
    23206 N. Pedregosa Drive
    Sun City West, AZ 85375
    623-238-5039
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    yfox
    Basic Member
    Posts:240 Basic Member

    --
    01 Oct 2024 03:48 PM
    George M. Papa
    1116 East Kramer Circle
    Mesa, AZ 85203
    (480) 844-7356
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    yfox
    Basic Member
    Posts:240 Basic Member

    --
    02 Oct 2024 06:15 PM
    Comment In Response to Temporary Emergency Adoption of Petition R-24-0046 that would amend Rule 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona to impose a standing requirement to qualify as a complainant in a state Bar disciplinary proceeding.

    I am not an attorney; however I believe that it is important for non attorneys, like me, to comment on proposed rules, as such impact on all of us. For example,the endless unsubstantiated petitions filed regarding alleged voter fraud are costing me money as courts must respond; clogging up courts so legitimate cases cannot be heard in a timely manner, and are undermining the public's confidence in our very very secure elections, which undermine our democracy. Thus I believe that it is critically important that both attorneys & non attorneys be allowed to continue to file complaints about unethical attorneys.

    In addition to election issues, clients often have no idea that their attorney may be acting unethically --- especially if the client is elderly with perhaps dementia as my husband has, or an abused woman etc, In such instances, it is critically important for another attorney who becomes aware of unethical conduct to file a complaint, which is prohibited by the proposed rule.

    Once I became aware of this proposed rule and a brief window to comment, I did some research and read that the American Bar Association (ABA) encourages that the lawyers be held accountable when they violate those ethics. This rule does just the opposite and hampers accountability.

    I am now paraphrasing from what I read about the ABA and this issue; in each instance the proposed rule prohibits the very actions that the ABA recommends!!!. The ABA Task Force calls on lawyers to reduce disinformation around elections not increase it; to ensure election workers safety, not attack it; and to improve the system of holding lawyers accountable under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
    The ABA Task Force’s number one suggestion is: First and foremost, enforce lawyers’ ethical obligations when it comes to the filing of questionable election-related lawsuits. The third request of the ABA is for other lawyers to speak up in defense of onstitutional principles and the rule of law. .

    Contrary to what has occurred in Arizona, many prominent attorneys recommend strengthening Rule 8.3 requiring lawyers to report misconduct of other lawyers. They recommend making the rule mandatory when the behavior is compromising democratic institutions, and the public could perceive that the lawyer is putting the client’s interest above the rule of law. A mandatory rule would also help motivate internal watchdogs and whistleblowers to come forth. This new Arizona rule does the opposite; it weakens Rule 8.3 by prohibiting concerned lawyers from making complaints.

    The more I read about this issue, the more I came to the conclusion that it is very harmful to both: a) the legal profession that should hold itself to the highest ethical standards, vs. allowing attorneys to file lawsuits without any basis in fact or reality and to: b) our democratic system, which relies on documented fair, reliable elections to select our leaders.

    This is not a 'free speech' issue. Attorneys and all people can espouse their views in a multitude of ways and in many venues from holding up signs on street corners, to attending rallies, to sharing their view on social media etc. But they must also follow rules established to protect our judicial system and democracy, i,.e., attorneys should not be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, and should not be allowed to file lawsuits NOT based on facts, knowing that complaints against them cannot be filed, which is what this order does.

    S I say NO, No, no to this Temporary Emergency Adoption of Petition R-24-0046 that would amend Rule 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona to impose a standing requirement to qualify as a complainant in a state Bar disciplinary proceeding.

    Rivko Knox
    3134 W. Gelding Drive
    Phoenix, AZ 85053 - Maricopa County
    60-430-5287
    [email protected]
    You are not authorized to post a reply.