US Senate candidate Kari Lake was asked recently to respond to a report in the Arizona Daily Independent which exposed the practice used by progressives who file complaints with State Bar organizations against lawyers for daring to represent Republicans, especially in election challenges.
Inundated with charges filed by The 65 Project, a Democratic dark money campaign attempting to punish and disbar lawyers that challenged the results of the 2020 election, the Arizona Bar has undertaken dozens of investigations, some of which have lasted the better part of three years. Several of these charges have reportedly been sent to the Arizona Discipline Probable Cause Committee (ADPCC) for further proceedings.
During her interview on the James T. Harris show, Lake said that three of her attorneys are under investigation by the Arizona Bar. Lake said, in her opinion, it was “pretty obvious” that the Arizona Bar is “attempting to scare attorneys from taking on any cases having to do with election fraud, election malfeasance, and election mismanagement. They don’t want us talking about elections – if you haven’t noticed – and they don’t want us questioning anything that happens with our elections.” Lake continued, “they want to threaten attorneys’ ability to practice law and who want to pursue an election case.”
According to the Arizona Bar’s website, when a charge is referred to the ADPCC, like has reportedly happened to at least one of Lake’s attorneys, “[t]he Respondent attorney… may submit a written response to the State Bar’s report of investigation and have it considered by the Committee.” Further, “Bar Counsel appears at the ADPCC meeting and makes a brief presentation of the matter to the Committee.” However, because the meetings are not public, neither the Respondent attorney, nor the public may attend the ADPCC meeting. Although the Bar could orally supplement the record at the meeting, the attorney is not allowed to be present to defend himself against the charge.
Arizona attorneys have confided in the Arizona Daily Independent that ADPCC, which only meets once a month, is typically known to affirm the findings of the Arizona Bar. Only after the ADPCC affirms disciplinary action, whether its an order of diversion, informal discipline (an admonition, probation, or restitution), or formal discipline (reprimand, suspension, disbarment), may formal proceedings before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge commence. Proceedings range from a settlement conference to a full blown trial. Following initiation of formal proceedings, it could take months or years to reach the trial stage. Then, only after the conclusion of the formal proceedings’ trial may an attorney finally appeal an adverse decision of the Disciplinary Panel to the Arizona Supreme Court. This is after months, and sometimes years, of the initial investigation.
“During those years, the attorney lives under the thumb of the Bar. They are holding the fate of that attorney, and during that time they can ask any question the Bar desires, they can depose the attorney, including demanding that the attorney reveal attorney client privilege and they can force them to produce documents. So, part of it is just keeping these attorneys in that horrible place for as long as possible and make their lives a living hell and threaten their livelihood,” Lake explained.
“I’m asking what is the Supreme Court doing about it because they also oversee the Arizona Bar,” Lake told Harris.
“Truthfully, the Supreme Court of Arizona, long ago, delegated its authority to discipline attorneys to the Bar. They delegated that authority over to the Bar, but the authority still inherently lies with the Arizona Supreme Court, so they have the ability to rein in the Bar which has become a political out-of-control entity,” Lake added.
Lake pointed out that when Justice William Montgomery was the Maricopa County Attorney, he faced politically-motivated charges filed by partisan attorneys, so he is familiar with the seemingly abusive process.
Some legal experts have suggested that the Arizona Supreme Court could form a task force to investigate the Arizona Bar’s disciplinary process, or in the extreme, simply take back control of these proceedings from start to finish. Lake speculated that “it’s politically convenient for the Arizona Supreme Court to let the Bar harass attorneys and then their hands can stay clean of it.”
In the meantime, Arizona Daily Independent has identified more than two dozen attorneys that continue to have their livelihoods threatened as the Arizona Bar pursues what many see as simply politically-motivated charges.
“There’s no wonder that more attorneys won’t take on these cases because they don’t want to deal with the Arizona State Bar,” Lake noted.