Arizona Supreme Court changes rules for complaints against attorneys before elections

The Arizona Supreme Court has granted a request to change the rules about who can file a complaint with the bar – at least temporarily.

A top state court administrator spoke in favor of the rule change, which takes a step before some bar complaints against Arizona lawyers are investigated and limits access to information disclosed during those investigations.

Dave Byers, director of court administration, said he filed the rule change request in response to an “explosion of complaints” from people not directly connected to the underlying events.

Byers said he has noticed an increase in the number of complaints about election cases. He estimated that at least 40 election-related cases were filed from November 2020 to May of this year.

The Arizona State Bar Association investigated several attorneys in connection with the 2020 election, including one who was involved in compiling the false electors who falsely claimed that then-President Donald Trump had won the state.

A committee of the Arizona State Judiciary concluded, following initial investigations by the bar association, that there was sufficient suspicion that disciplinary action should be taken against three lawyers who had represented former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake in election-related cases.

The rules have enabled complainants to be significantly involved in the investigation process, Byers said.

“They get documents. They can object to whatever the bar association suggests as an outcome,” Byers said at the time of his lawsuit in May. “But they also get information about these lawyers that I don't think is necessarily appropriate. It could even be things like the lawyer's health.”

Under the revised rules, complaints from people not directly involved in the underlying incident would first be reviewed by the Bar before being accepted for investigation. The Bar will first determine whether the allegations constitute “serious misconduct, incapacity, overdraft of a trust account, or a criminal conviction.” If the Bar determines that the allegations fall into any of these categories, the Bar itself will be appointed as the complainant, denying the original complainant access to any information obtained during the subsequent investigation.

In an order issued Friday, the state Supreme Court said the new rules would take effect immediately. Byers had asked for the motion to be reviewed on expedited notice so it could take effect before the 2024 election. The court will consider whether to make the rule change permanent at its December 2024 point-of-order meeting, Chief Justice Ann Timmer said in her ruling.

Timmer has reopened the rule change motion and is allowing the public to comment until October 1. The motion can be found on the court's website.

Attorney Dianne Post filed an objection when Byers' proposal was first presented. She said she believed she was one of the people affected by the change because she and her colleagues had filed several complaints against lawyers involved in election challenges.

Reached by phone Monday, Post said she assumed the change was implemented before the fall election because courts expected a flood of election-related cases.

“States, counties and cities are already allocating money to respond to these complaints,” she said. “We know lawyers will do that.”

She said the rule change would hinder her work and that of her colleagues in calling out other lawyers who behave unethically in their attempts to overturn election results and monitoring the subsequent results of the bar's investigations.

“There should be more transparency,” she said. “How do you know what you looked at? How do you know what punishment the person actually received?”

Post said the bar association had “neglected” its duty to hold lawyers accountable, citing its decision announced Monday not to seek sanctions against Kari Lake's lawyers.

“The problem is that the Bar Association has responded so poorly to the complaints filed after 2020 and 2022 that they have not sent a message not to do this,” she said. “So they have empowered lawyers to do this again.”

Representatives of the Bar Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.

Reach the reporter at [email protected].

Champions Oncology reports quarterly revenue of $14.1 million, adjusted EBITDA of $2.0 million

Online reports - Ecology - From tree to tree using adrenaline strategy

WATCH: F1 experiences strangest accident before Italian Grand Prix

Arizona Supreme Court changes rules for complaints against attorneys before elections

Related posts:

By Hudson Brooklyn

You Missed

Reddit slams Ranbir Kapoor's 'classist' sister Riddhima for her 'maybe it's a housekeeper' remark to trolls | Bollywood

Trump is full of great ideas. It's a shame that they're so bad.

Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris: Who said what about gun violence?

Tied up, kicked in the chest: fiancée of an army officer reports attack on police station in Odisha; former Prime Minister Patnaik reacts

Arizona Supreme Court changes rules for complaints against attorneys before elections

Related posts:

By Hudson Brooklyn

Related Post

Reddit slams Ranbir Kapoor's 'classist' sister Riddhima for her 'maybe it's a housekeeper' remark to trolls | Bollywood

Trump is full of great ideas. It's a shame that they're so bad.

Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris: Who said what about gun violence?

You Missed

Reddit slams Ranbir Kapoor's 'classist' sister Riddhima for her 'maybe it's a housekeeper' remark to trolls | Bollywood

Trump is full of great ideas. It's a shame that they're so bad.

Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris: Who said what about gun violence?

Tied up, kicked in the chest: fiancée of an army officer reports attack on police station in Odisha; former Prime Minister Patnaik reacts