PHOENIX — Claims of election fraud in court cases in Arizona have led to a proposed change to how lawyers are held accountable in the state.
Currently, anyone who might have a concern about the conduct of attorneys working in Arizona can file a charge of misconduct with the State Bar of Arizona. The reasons for reporting a charge vary but are generally meant to focus on whether an attorney discharged their duties properly, not only to those who have hired them but to the legal profession altogether. Standards for attorneys are outlined in the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court.
The current charge of misconduct system allows anyone to make the Bar aware of their concerns, regardless of their relationship with the attorney or even if they live in the state. If there is found to be enough cause for filing a formal complaint, which could lead to disciplinary action, then the Bar will do that.
The process could soon change if a proposal by Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Director David Byers goes through. Byers is asking for the state's highest court to change their rules, consolidating complaints by essentially limiting the involvement of people who do not have a direct relationship with the attorney in question.
"A person would have to have some personal knowledge," Byers explained.
Do you have a concern in your community or a news tip? We want to hear from you!
Connect with us: share@abc15.com
Byers outlined his motivation for the rule change clearly in his proposal document and in an interview, pointing to the high number of complaints against Arizona attorneys who were involved in election lawsuits claiming, without merit, there was significant fraud in the 2020 and 2022 elections. Byers said Arizona has seen more than 40 election-related cases since the general election in November 2020, as a result of which then-President Donald Trump spread falsehoods that the election had been stolen from him.
"It really is weaponizing the regulatory system," Byers said of the election-related cases. "The system is not meant to be a political process, it's meant to look at the facts, find the evidence and discipline attorneys on behalf of the public, if they're doing something inappropriate."
Beyond the political reasons Byers says are involved in some complaints, he expressed concern that throughout the process of investigating a complaint, the complainant would be given access to information they should not be privy to.
"You get information, you get documents, you might even get things like, you know, medical information about the lawyer," he said.
Earlier this month, Bryan Blehm, an attorney who had been defending now-U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake's 2022 election fraud claims in court, was suspended from practicing law for 60 days. The decision came after it was determined Blehm lied to the state's highest court by claiming, without evidence, that it was an "undisputed fact" there were 35,000 illegal ballots inserted into Maricopa County's total vote count.
Byers' plan has faced pushback in the legal community.
"Lawyers are officers of the court. I'm an officer of the court. We take an oath of office when we become members of the State Bar of Arizona," said metro Phoenix attorney Tom Ryan. "And this rule change doesn't recognize that."
In a forum for Arizona attorneys responding to the proposed rule change, attorney Dianne Post compared Byers' proposal to banning people from reporting crimes to law enforcement if they were not personally victimized by or a witness to a crime.
"The fact that there has been, in recent years, an unusually high volume of reports of misconduct by lawyers practicing law in Arizona - both by those who are members of the State Bar of Arizona, and those appearing pro hac vice in Arizona - is not a reason to dilute this rule by adding a new standing provision to Rule 53," Post said, referencing the rule number that Byers' proposal would change. "Indeed, this is precisely the reason not to dilute it.
Byers has been accused by some attorneys, like Ryan, of politicizing the regulatory process in his attempt to change the state's process for complaints. However, he responded to the accusations, with confusion.
"I don't know what they mean," Byers told ABC15. "No one's talked to me about it."
Byers said complainants will still have a pathway to make their voices heard, just not in the same way. His rule change proposal would allow for the Bar to take over as the formal complainant, which would, in part, mean the original complainant would be given access to less information.
Republican Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, who has a background in law, wrote in support of Byers' plan, calling it a "good first step towards rectifying the misuse of the bar complaint process and providing safeguards against weaponization."
The Arizona Supreme Court is expected to take the matter up for a review in August, considering comments for and against the proposal.
Byers has requested an emergency implementation of the rule change, should it be approved, in order to curb potential complaints that could again be filed in the wake of the 2024 election results.
