An Arizona attorney representing herself in a child custody case has been deemed a vexatious litigant due to her conduct in the case, according to an order signed by the presiding judge of the Cochise County Superior Court.
Nancy L. Bourke “may not file pleadings” in the contentious custody case except as outlined in a separate document Judge Timothy Dickerson filed in the case file. As such, the specific conduct Bourke is alleged to have been engaged in is not known to the public as the entire file was ordered sealed a few years ago.
A vexatious litigant is someone who represents themselves in a non-criminal matter without an attorney – what is commonly referred to as acting Pro Se – and whom has been found by a county’s presiding judge or designee to have engaged in one or more acts of vexations conduct as outlined in Arizona Revised Statutes 12-3201.
The law applies to Bourke despite the fact she is an attorney, as she is currently a Pro Se litigant in the custody case.
Dickerson’s order further grants permission to the trial judge assigned to Bourke’s custody case to determine the procedure Bourke must follow when seeking permission to file a pleading which she does not have advance permission to file.
Various acts of vexations conduct can include making repeated court filings solely or primarily for the purpose of harassment; bringing or defending court actions “without substantial justification;” and engaging in a pattern of making “unreasonable, repetitive and excessive requests for information,” according to the statute.
Another example is the repeated filing of documents or requests for relief that have been the subject of previous court rulings in the same case.
Bourke’s name is one of dozens posted to the Arizona Supreme Court’s website since 2020 when Chief Justice Robert Brutinel established a central repository of those deemed vexatious litigants in any of Arizona’s 15 counties.
Public records show Bourke has also been under the watch of the State Bar of Arizona dating back to 2019 concerning her courthouse and courtroom conduct.
She agreed in 2021 to informal sanctions of admonition as well as two years of probation.
The sanctions were due to her “inappropriate and unprofessional courtroom behavior, her abusive communication with court staff, her inappropriate comments about a judge in filings with the court and on social media, and her lack of communication with the State Bar during the screening process,” the records note.
The last vexatious litigant determination prior to Bourke’s was issued in December 2022 by the civil presiding judge of Pinal County Superior Court.
In that order, Judge Christopher J. O’Neil made substantive findings as to the frivolous and harassing nature of actions by Joe Roberson, and “determined that pre-filing restrictions are necessary and appropriate.”
O’Neil, who noted that such orders “must be entered sparingly and appropriately,” prohibited Robertson “any new” pleading, motion, or other document without prior leave of the Pinal County courts.