If you follow this website, you know about the depths of corruption within the Arizona State Bar. It's gotten so bad that one of the former members of the Bar's Board of Governors wrote an op-ed for Forbes recently exposing it. Well, within a couple hours after the article was posted here on the Forbes site, it was removed! (note the title is still in the url - proof it was there) When the author inquired about it, he discovered that the Bar had complained to Forbes - on frankly bogus pretenses. Well, that's OK, we'll just post it here for everyone in Arizona to read. And perhaps re-post it on other sites, and re-post it again and again. We've learned that the Arizona Bar disciplinary judge William O'Neil "is a member of the Barnett family, which is basically a one family crime syndicate that everyone in Pinal County knows." While throwing the book at innocent conservative Republican attorneys, disbarring many of them, he hired a bailiff who had seven felony convictions, and after another buddy put through a crooked short sale for him to benefit O'Neil's mother-in-law, O'Neil rewarded him by letting him continue to practice law in prison after killing a woman in a DUI! (click here) So we're basically up against organized crime, but there are now enough of us fighting back, through legislative reform and media exposure, that they can't keep us silent any longer through threats and squelching free speech.
Arizona's Legal Ethics, Public Corruption And Lawyer Discipline' Sui Generis' Or A National Pattern?
GUEST POST WRITTEN BY Jack Levine
Mr. Levine was a member of the Arizona Bar’s Board of Governors from 2011 to 2013.
Do Arizona lawyers really have lower ethical standards than
lawyers in New York, Illinois, California and other states? Or is
Arizona merely unique and not representative of the practice of
law elsewhere?
Undeniably, our nation’s large law firms play a valuable role in
our legal system by handling complex legal matters such as
multinational
corporate business transactions, IPO offerings,
corporate mergers and acquisitions, patents and copyrights,
international law, intellectual property rights, etc. However, due
to the scope and magnitude of their work, large law firms also
have the capacity to cause enormous harm when engaged in
illegal or unethical conduct, either on their own behalf, or at the
direction of unscrupulous clients.
Curiously, there are far more sole practitioners and smallfirm
lawyers who become the subject of disciplinary proceedings
than bigfirm
lawyers. In addition to the possibility that bigfirm
Capital Flows Contributor
Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
lawyers may not be reporting unethical conduct among their
own, one might also conclude that more sole practitioners and
smallfirm
lawyers receive discipline for alleged ethical
violations than bigfirm
lawyers because the ethical standards of
bigfirm
lawyers may be higher than that of sole practitioners or
smallfirm
lawyers. In one sense, this may be true because the
large law firms generally do a better job of overseeing ethics
among associates and frequently have “inhouse”
ethics counsel
who “nip problems in the bud” before they become bar
complaints. Also the big law firms carry malpractice insurance
and are quicker to “lawyer up” to defend and litigate against
complaints, while many sole practitioners and smallfirm
lawyers may not carry such insurance.
Also, a deeper exploration of this issue suggests that when firmwide
unethical conduct occurs in big law firms, it occurs as a
matter of law firm policy and because of this may be of such
enormous magnitude that for political, economic, social or other
reasons, it has been totally ignored by the lawyer regulation
system of the various state bar associations.
The role of large firm lawyerlobbyists,
raising substantial sums
of money for members of state legislatures on behalf of clients
seeking to influence a particular legislative agenda should be a
matter of some ethical concern to the profession, not only in
Arizona, but everywhere. In Arizona, we have also been
occasionally treated to the spectacle of large law firms carrying
on legislative lobbying activities for clients while their partners
are, at the same time, active members of the legislative body
they are seeking to influence.
Large firms’ “captive client” relationships
Over a number of years, two of Arizona’s largest law firms have
gradually taken over control of the state’s two largest public
utilities by placing their firm members, former firm members
and relatives on their governing boards and executive offices,
while at the same time each serving as their law firms. It is also
a matter of some irony that while these law firms were taking
control of their public utility clients, members of one of these
law firms served for many years as the State Bar’s Chief Ethics
Counsel.
When a law firm controls a public utility’s governing board and
executive offices, this results in the creation of a “captive client”
who is powerless to make independent decisions concerning
what law firm should represent them, what legal services they
require and, most importantly for the utility’s ratepayers, the
size of the law firm’s legal bills. Not only is this an egregious
ethical violation, but there is concern that excessive legal fees
paid to these law firms over the many years that these
arrangements have existed may have amounted to billions of
dollars. If these practices did not exist, the cost of water and
electricity would be considerably less for consumers than they
are now. Are these practices limited only to Arizona or are the
financial incentives for large law firms to impose their control
over our public utilities so great that these practices exist
everywhere?
Another unethical scheme that has long existed in Arizona that
has gone unchallenged and, may also be ignored in other states,
has been the practice of large law firms contributing bundled
campaign contributions from firm members, relatives and
friends to political candidates who, when elected, control
government agencies at the state, county and municipal levels.
These contributing law firms are then generously rewarded by
successful candidates through the referral of all of their agency’s
outside legal business to the law firm. Such “pay to play”
schemes also have many of the earmarks of a “captive client”
relationship between the contributing law firm and the
government agency, because the head of the government agency
who has received gifts of campaign money is less likely to look
out for the interests of taxpaying citizens.
Also, of concern are large law firms who have profited in real
estate transactions from information supplied to them by firm
members serving on committees entrusted by the public to
select sites for county and municipal development projects. In
addition, during the Arizona Savings & Loan scandal of the
1980s, an investigation revealed that members of large law
firms acted as intermediate “purchasers and sellers” of their
clients’ real estate in order to fraudulently boost the value of
such land so that their developer clients could obtain higher sale
prices and larger loans based on these artificially inflated values.
Large firms’ relationship to the bar
One would think that the intentional involvement in such
egregious conflicts of interest would result in severe
condemnation and drastic disciplinary sanctions, but the State
Bar of Arizona has been strangely silent on such issues. It has
been suggested that one of the reasons the State Bar, as well as
bar associations in other mandatory bar states, may consistently
turn their otherwise stern gaze away from the activities of the
big law firms is because lawyers in the large law firms in these
states constitute a substantial voting block which controls the
election of candidates to the bar’s governing boards.
In addition, because large firms have such a significant financial
stake in perpetuating these unethical moneymaking
practices
and have substantial resources to defend themselves against
disciplinary charges, this serves as an effective deterrent to
disciplinary action by the various state bar associations. Taking
on one of the big firms over such issues would require an
enormous expenditure of time, money and effort by state bar
associations in pursuing such a task, which could quickly
exhaust their financial resources. It is much easier for state bar
associations to pursue sole practitioners or smallfirm
lawyers
who rarely have the financial ability to defend themselves. With
legal bills in such cases sometimes running as high as $50,000
or more, very few sole practitioners or smallfirm
lawyers can
afford legal representation in disciplinary matters, not to
mention the time that this takes away from their practice and,
the emotional strain of undergoing a disciplinary proceeding
without an extensive support system, such as exists in the large
law firms.
Also, one disturbing feature of Arizona’s disciplinary system,
which may be occurring elsewhere, is the assessment of fines,
denominated by the bar as “costs” ranging from $1,200 up to
$100,000 against lawyers charged with ethical misconduct.
These “costs” when collected are lumped together with the State
Bar’s other revenues and used to pay the salaries of staff
members in the Lawyer Regulation Office which average over
$100,000 a year. Perhaps the most disturbing feature of
Arizona’s disciplinary system is the perception on the part of
many lawyers that the State Bar uses its disciplinary system as a
device to intimidate lawyers to prevent them from speaking out
against the State Bar’s policies and actions with which they
disagree. This chilling perception was recently reinforced when
several sole practitioners who openly advocated for the
conversion of Arizona’s mandatory state bar to a voluntary bar
at legislative hearings on this subject found themselves on the
receiving end of “questionable” disciplinary charges pursued
against them by the State Bar.
Flawed lawyer disciplinary programs
It is generally agreed that the core function of a lawyer
discipline system is to protect the public against unethical
lawyers and to instill a sense of confidence in the legal
profession. This leads to a brooding concern among many who
are involved in enforcing the profession’s ethical rules in the
various states that if they do not demonstrate that they are
being sufficiently “tough” on lawyers, the public may demand
that state legislatures step in and remove the disciplinary
function from state bar associations and set up their own
disciplinary agency under the legislature’s control.
It may be for this reason that Arizona’s disciplinary system often
functions in its pursuit of sole practitioners and smallfirm
lawyers much like the black holes in outer space—once you
enter its orbit, “nothing escapes, not even light.” As a result,
those lawyers in Arizona who specialize in defending other
lawyers in disciplinary proceedings make it a routine practice to
advise their clients to plead guilty and accept whatever plea
agreement is offered by the State Bar’s Lawyer Regulation
Office. This is so, because if lawyers demand an evidentiary
hearing, they will almost without exception be found guilty, and
punishment for the lawyer will usually end up being far more
severe than if they had accepted the State Bar’s original offer for
discipline.
One of the common misperceptions that is thought to fuel many
of the attitudes and beliefs held by those involved in enforcing
the various state bar disciplinary programs is that the public’s
image of the legal profession has fallen to its present low level,
primarily because of the conduct of unethical lawyers. However,
public polling conducted a number of years ago by the American
Bar Association on this issue suggests otherwise. Their study
concluded that although individual acts of unethical conduct do
clearly hurt the profession, this does not even approach the
collective damage done to the image of lawyers by billboards
and other mass media advertising, soliciting accident victims in
order to bring personal injury claims and law suits. If lawyers
seek to improve their public image as “ambulance chasers,”
constitutionally valid restrictions imposed by state bars on
personal injury advertising might be a far more effective way to
do this than continuing to beef up their disciplinary programs.
Lawyer disciplinary reform
In order to promote fairness and to comply with basic “due
process” requirements, it is necessary to ensure that those who
administer state bar disciplinary programs be “fairminded”
individuals. One of the principal flaws in the way these
programs have been administered is the jaundiced view that is
frequently acquired by lawyers and others who serve, year after
year, as hearing officers, members of hearing committees or as
members of disciplinary commissions, who consider appeals
from hearing committees. Also, many who fill these positions
are recruited for these positions by the lawyer regulation offices
of the various state bars.
Many of those who respond to such recruiting do so because of a
desire to rid the bar of unethical lawyers, a desire which is too
often psychologically “projected” on all lawyers who come
before them, thereby creating a powerful negative bias when
considering individual cases. Although, those who are accepted
for appointment for these positions normally go through an
orientation program, the program is usually conducted by the
state bar’s disciplinary staff and recruits then serve year after
year as hearing officers, on hearing committees and disciplinary
commissions, working closely with the state bar’s disciplinary
staff in deciding the fate of lawyers in disciplinary cases.
By comparison, if a county attorney or state attorney general
solicited applications from those who were willing to serve as
jurors in criminal cases so that criminals could be punished or
eliminated from society and, who were then trained by the
prosecutor for their duties and, only then were permitted to
serve as jurors in case after case, year after year, surely there
would be a thunderous outcry that such a system was grossly
unfair and an outrageous denial of “due process.” Yet, this is
precisely how many state bar disciplinary systems have always
functioned in mandatory bar states. In the view of many lawyers
in such states, the state bar acts much like a “Frankenstein
Monster,” running amuck among the lawyers, far too often
striking down the innocent as well as the guilty. Despite
substantial revisions in recent years to the rules of procedure in
disciplinary cases, it is believed by many that these changes
have done little to tame the “Frankenstein Monster.”
One of the clearest indications that fairness and due process are
frequently lacking in state bar disciplinary cases is the curious
practice of imposing increased sanctions against lawyers who do
not show remorse at their disciplinary hearings. In disciplinary
matters, an expression of remorse is considered an important
mitigating factor and, conversely, lack of it is considered an
aggravating factor in determining an appropriate sanction for
the lawyer. In one disciplinary case, In Re Shannon, 179 Ariz.
This article is available online at: 2016 Forbes.com LLC™ All Rights Reserved
52, 81 (1994), Justice Thomas Zlaket, of the Arizona Supreme
Court, much to his credit, recognized the absurdity of such a
practice:
“I fear that today’s opinion sends an erroneous message to those
facing the disciplinary process: that if they dare to challenge the
charges against them, the consequences may be more severe than if
they simply confess wrongdoing and pray for mercy. There is
something demoralizing and destructive in such a message,
something that violates the very spirit upon which our legal system is
premised.”
Despite the adoption of recent reforms, including intake
procedures designed to prevent frivolous complaints from
entering the system and an “ethics school” for lawyers accused
of minor violations, the lack of essential fairness in many parts
of the lawyer disciplinary process has yet to be addressed. If
efforts at lawyer selfregulation
are to be honored and respected
by the public and members of the legal profession, the basic
inequities in the present system must be resolved and its
foundations restructured consistent with essential notions of
fairness and “due process.” There is widespread concern among
lawyers in Arizona and elsewhere, that if state bar associations
cannot provide a disciplinary system where justice prevails for
lawyers, can lawyers seek it for others?
Mr. Levine is also past Chair of the Arizona Bar’s Sole
Practitioner and Small Firm Lawyer Section’s Study
Committee On Lawyer Discipline.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
2016 GOP guide to voting for Arizona judges
H/T to Frosty of MCRC Briefs for posting this. LD22 PC Karen Thomas has updated her Judges 2016 report. I'll add that I have been impressed with the fairness of Paul McMurdie on family court issues. We previously published Karen's recommendations in 2014 here.
Friday, October 7, 2016
Backpage pimping raid: Arrest warrants issued for former New Times owners
Former Phoenix New Times owners Michael Lacey and James Larkin have been charged in California with conspiracy to commit pimping in connection with their controlling interest in the Backpage adult classified ad portal, and warrants have been issued for their arrests.
...
Winn said it was telling that the two men sold New Times, the journalism enterprise that started their business, but kept Backpage. “They were never going to give up that cash cow,” she said. “It was too profitable.”
Read the rest of the article
...
Winn said it was telling that the two men sold New Times, the journalism enterprise that started their business, but kept Backpage. “They were never going to give up that cash cow,” she said. “It was too profitable.”
Read the rest of the article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)