The public's role in attorney discipline

If you ever use an attorney, this will come in handy.

There are many resources out there for the public to use, but not many of them are utilized enough.

Campaign finance reports, financial disclosure forms, property records and even public records requests are available to everyone, but how many people know that they can use these government features or even know how to navigate them?

Attorney discipline is another example and the one that will be the focus of this story.

If you want a further breakdown of transparency (or the lack thereof) in this process, make sure to read this wonderful write-up from the fine folks at the Arizona Agenda.

When lawyers face complaints, the public deserves to know why

It explains what is and isn’t considered a public record by the Arizona State Bar’s standards and why more information needs to be public especially in the cases of elected officials who are also attorneys¹.

Since the State Bar is not a government entity, but rather a private nonprofit organization operating under the Arizona Supreme Court, the state’s public records law does not strictly apply to them.

“Public access to discipline records is set forth in Rule 70 of the Arizona Supreme Court rules and it says that most discipline records become public when the investigation has concluded,” Carol Rose, public relations manager for the Arizona State Bar, told Fourth Estate 48.

Rule 70 also states that, “if the proceeding is based on allegations that have become generally known to the public, the board may authorize disclosure of the record or other information” so I requested the Board of Governors to use that disclosure power to turn over records pertaining to the widely known investigation into former Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

Board of Governors President Benjamin Taylor said, “The board’s executive council sets the agenda for meetings of the full board. We will add this request to the next executive council meeting to be held later this month.”

But even though not everything is transparent, there still is a lot of information the public can access on the State Bar’s website.

Carol Rose, the public relations manager for the Arizona State Bar, explained tools everybody can use on the official website.

Scrolling down on the homepage, you’ll see these icons. Clicking on either “check lawyer discipline” or “find a lawyer” will bring you to a page where you can search for any attorneys who might be licensed to practice law in Arizona.

Or if not looking into disciplinary history, you can search for an attorney who might meet a specific need of service.

For discipline though, if there was a charge that was investigated and that attorney was found to have violated ethics rules, it will appear on their profile without any further searching. This includes a link to the ruling and what was investigated.

Juan Martinez, a now disbarred prosecutor, is a fine example for how the search may look.

Clicking the link above brings up a small window like this explaining what happened:

An issue that can come up though is it doesn’t let you know if there is a serious allegation that is under investigation. Like Brnovich’s case. So it shows “none” under discipline, despite an active investigation. And a previous charge that Brnovich agreed to enter a diversion agreement for, doesn’t show up either because diversion is not a completed investigation, Rose noted.

There are also instances where an attorney may be “admonished” which can be removed from their profile on the website, but that info can still be requested through the link in the profile that says “history request form.”

In my experience, the Bar turns over information rather expeditiously.

I looked into two attorneys, one was Abraham Hamadeh and another was for a matter helping out someone who was using the services of an attorney so I won’t name that person.

The State Bar said this about Hamadeh, “The lawyer for whom you requested a discipline history has 1 public record(s). The matter was dismissed. Matters which are dismissed may have been dismissed in intake or following an investigation.”

This was the charge that was dismissed from an anonymous account:

The Bar sent me this regarding the other attorney:

“The lawyer for whom you requested a discipline history has 2 public record(s). Both charges resulted in Admonitions.”

I also received the specific rulings after requesting them, so don’t fret if you don’t see anything on each profile. Feel free to look into it yourself, or I’d be happy to look for you. (Email me.)

---

In 2022, the Bar’s most recent annual report, shows 25,494 attorneys are licensed in Arizona and the Bar received more than 2,400 charges. Of those, 383 were referred to investigation, 292 attorneys were investigated and 78% of those investigations wrapped up.

In total:

• 8 attorneys were disbarred

• 23 were suspended

• 25 reprimanded

• 33 received informal sanctions

• 110 entered into a diversion agreement²

• 171 were dismissed with comment (these get wiped off the lawyer’s record after six months)

The State Bar did not get back to me in time with the names of the eight disbarred attorneys.

Comparing the annual reports to previous years shows eight disbarments is pretty low. Here’s what the numbers show dating back to 2014:

2021-9

2020-8

2019-18

2018-15

2017-21

2016-12

2015-12

2014-13

Last year, the average time it took the investigative team to investigate complaints was between 6-7 months.³ How many people are on the team?

“There is good-sized team of 25-30 paralegals, investigators and attorneys who handle Bar complaints. For more complex cases, 10 to 15 staff members may touch an investigation by the time it reaches its outcome,” Rose said.

I’m also now on Threads at drr2893 so feel free to say hello over there.

1. Specifically when being an attorney is a requirement for the elected position… ie: Mark Brnovich, Arizona’s ethically challenged former Attorney General.

2. One of these was Brnovich

3. State lawmaker and former Cyber Ninjas attorney Alexander Kolodin is still under Bar investigation after 31 months, far above the average and nowhere closer to receiving information.