How is the Public Served by Secrecy in the Arizona State Bar?

[better-dead-than-fed]

The Arizona State Bar is hiding records of (1) complaints against lawyers and (2) the State Bar's response to those complaints.

http://better-dead-than-fed.tumblr.com/post/29489648796/arizona-state-bar-hides-lawyers-misconduct-from-the

How does this serve the public?

[better-dead-than-fed]

In the Loughner case ("Tucson tragedy"), on May 25, 2011, the presiding judge stated, "I got some letters declaring some conflict with his counsel.... I intend to table them at this time. At such a point that his competency is restored, if he wants to bring up the matter of counsel, he can renew it then." (court transcript, 2011-May-25 (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhdzhGQVVLQWhXRk0))

The judge suppressed the letters from the court record, for no apparent reason. (docket report (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhWDkwbEg0X0tHM1k))

So much for reliable proceedings and the Sixth-Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.

[kathy88]

That's hideous. Thanks for posting.

[Acala]

The discipline record of every Arizona lawyer is here:

http://www.azbar.org/lawyerconcerns/disciplineprocess/reportsoflawyerdiscipline

Not defending the Arizona State bar, which I loath, just giving the facts.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I loath it with you, and I'm all for airing the facts. The database you cite omits complaints which the State Bar has dismissed, and the database omits evidence substantiating such complaints. Case in point: in this exchange (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhMTFael9RYm1Sanc), the State Bar admits MacGuineas filed complaints against attorneys Gary Kneip, Richard Lougee, and Taylor Francis, and the State Bar admits that it "dismissed" those complaints. But the database you cite gives no justification as to why the State Bar dismissed those complaints, and it contains no record of those complaints.

In particular, the database omits complaints which the State Bar has dismissed arbitrarily or corruptly.

(edited for conciseness and clarity)

[pcosmar]

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/jailing_americans_for_profit_the_rise_of_the_priso n_industrial_complex

Conflicts of interest. Kick backs . prisons for Profit are a very bad idea all around.
And the System is wholly corrupt.

I have no idea how to fix it other than to scrap it in total and start over.

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/More-Prisoners-More-Profits-Union-Made-PATCH-eco-sustainability-/00/s/NjU1WDM5NA==/$(KGrHqF,!g8E8fYjq8H(BPIyvLl+N!~~60_3.JPG

http://www.ebay.com/itm/More-Prisoners-More-Profits-Union-Made-PATCH-eco-sustainability-/160724939794

[Acala]

Okay, but the AZ State Bar only "disciplines" lawyers who it's investigated (and found guilty). In this exchange (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhMTFael9RYm1Sanc), the State Bar admits MacGuineas filed charges against attorneys Gary Kneip, Richard Lougee, and Taylor Francis, and the State Bar admits that it "dismissed" those charges. But the database you cite gives no justification as to why the State Bar dismissed those charges, and it contains no record of those charges.

The link you gave had almost no details so I really can't say more specifically. Complaints filed with the State Bar are not criminal charges nor are they civil claims. They are complaints about a lawyer's violation of the professional rules of conduct. The State Bar supposedly investigates and makes a decision about such claims. They are mostly fee disputes. So the concern here is that the complaints themselves are not open to the public? I can give a reason why that would not be a good idea. Making mere allegations part of a lawyer's public record really opens things up for abuse. Any disgruntled person could endlessly paper an attorney with meritless claims that would nonetheless accumulate in a public file. Not really fair.

If they had serious charges they could file civil complaints and those WOULD be public record.

That having been said, I would abolish the State Bar and any limitation on who could do "legal' work or appear for another in court.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I didn't know bar associations claimed to serve the public. And if they do make that claim, I don't know anyone who believes it. That might explain why I've never heard the claim.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I didn't know bar associations claimed to serve the public. ...

It's here: http://www.azbar.org/AboutUs/MissionGoals ("Mission Statement: The State Bar of Arizona serves the public....").

[Acala]

It's here: http://www.azbar.org/AboutUs/MissionGoals ("Mission Statement: The State Bar of Arizona serves the public....").

Government granted a monopoly to the lawyer's union. Then, under the guise of protecting the public, the government delegated regulation of the the law business to the lawyer's union. Great plan - if you are a lawyer.

There is NO reason why lawyers need to be licensed or have exclusive access to the judicial system. It's a scam.

[Lucille]

Government granted a monopoly to the lawyer's union. Then, under the guise of protecting the public, the government delegated regulation of the the law business to the lawyer's union. Great plan - if you are a lawyer.

There is NO reason why lawyers need to be licensed or have exclusive access to the judicial system. It's a scam.

Word (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1096d.asp).


Licensing laws are almost always engineered by professional associations who want to protect the public from competitors who might charge lower prices.
[...]
In most states, citizens must pay lawyers to transact routine legal business that could easily be handled by legal secretaries or by the individuals themselves. Lawyer-journalist Doug Bandow observed:

"Lawyers have enormous influence in our increasingly litigious and regulated society. . . . For more than a century it has been illegal for anyone except a licensed attorney to "practice" law. It has always been lawyers, not consumers, who set professional entrance provisions, graded bar exams, and regulated treatment of clients."

In California, paralegal Mershan Shaddy was sentenced to 49 days in jail for the unauthorized practice of law. The Los Angeles Times noted:

"There is no definition for the "unauthorized practice of law." Paralegals charge that . . . terms are kept deliberately vague so that lawyers and judges can mold the law to fit a particular case."
[...]
Early in the twentieth century, a worker's right to choose his own profession was recognized as one of the hallmarks of American liberty. The Supreme Court ruled in 1907:

"The right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the "liberty" and "property" concepts of provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution that no person shall be denied liberty or property without due process of law."

We need to return to our forefathers' understanding of the importance of freedom in daily life. Freedom of contract means freedom in everyday life — freedom to try to build one's own life to the best of one's ability. Restrictions on freedom of enterprise amount to a political expropriation of opportunity — a constant whittling away of a person's opportunity in life.

That hotdog cart kid from MI whose family is now homeless? His dad is in jail for allegedly "working as a lawyer despite not having a legal license (http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/08/tea_party_plans_support_of_hol.html)."

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It's here: http://www.azbar.org/AboutUs/MissionGoals ("Mission Statement: The State Bar of Arizona serves the public....").


haha. Might as well start things off with the biggest lie, I guess. Part of what kept me out of that profession was knowing that in addition to making no money (helping people who couldn't afford help), I'd also NEVER be part their club and always be fighting the entire friggin system. I'd rather spread FIJA material and be more effective.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... I would abolish the State Bar and any limitation on who could do "legal' work or appear for another in court. ...
I'd deregulate the legal profession similarly. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386311-Why-Does-the-Public-Tolerate-the-Bar-Association-Monopolies&p=4584505#post4584505) I wouldn't abolish them altogether -- I'd allow them continue functioning as a circle-jerk, just without the special privileges currently granted to them by the government.


... the concern here is that the complaints themselves are not open to the public?...
That's my personal concern here.


... I can give a reason why that would not be a good idea. Making mere allegations part of a lawyer's public record really opens things up for abuse. Any disgruntled person could endlessly paper an attorney with meritless claims that would nonetheless accumulate in a public file. Not really fair.
A lawyer could show that such "meritless claims" were in fact meritless.


Complaints filed with the State Bar are not criminal charges nor are they civil claims. They are complaints about a lawyer's violation of the professional rules of conduct. The State Bar supposedly investigates and makes a decision about such claims.
What have you heard or seen which has given you the idea that the State Bar "investigates and makes a decision about such claims"? Compare:


... I reported some of this misconduct to the State Bar of Arizona. The Bar replied:

1. the law does not require them to investigate complaints that an attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct; and
2. the Bar was exercising its right not to investigate my complaints.
(quoting from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BlyN7z7AQCSNjzmHNPN3KHnRXODB0oW0Fcsp5sGJpKQ/edit)

[better-dead-than-fed]

I have just invited the State Bar of Arizona to reply to this thread. Their failure to reply can be used against them in the court of public opinion.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I have just invited the State Bar of Arizona to reply to this thread. Their failure to reply can be used against them in the court of public opinion.

They must be shaking in their penny loafers. lol

[pcosmar]

I have just invited the State Bar of Arizona to reply to this thread. Their failure to reply can be used against them in the court of public opinion.

That an a Buck will get you a cup of coffee.

Don't mean to be snide,, but that is the reality of it.

as some one said,,, "The system is not going to Crush itself".

[better-dead-than-fed]

it was parody of the Miranda Warnings. But seriously, this thread is pretty harsh on the State Bar. If there's any defense for their conduct, why don't they take a minute to 'splain themselves here?

[Acala]

What have you heard or seen which has given you the idea that the State Bar "investigates and makes a decision about such claims"? Compare:


(quoting from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BlyN7z7AQCSNjzmHNPN3KHnRXODB0oW0Fcsp5sGJpKQ/edit)

I get a monthly rag that lists the names of lawyers who have been disciplined and why. I would count the names in the last issue for you, but I throw the thing away as soon as I get it. But there are usually between ten and thirty names per month.

[Acala]

A lawyer could show that such "meritless claims" were in fact meritless.



Not really an adequate remedy. Take, for example, a divorce lawyer. In family law there are no winners and there is almost ALWAYS someone who is really pissed off. An active divorce lawyer might have hundreds of former opposition clients blaming him for their domestic troubles. Suppose each one filed a complaint just once a month alleging something heinous. The lawyer could never respond and his public record would be an irreperable mess.

[Acala]

it was parody of the Miranda Warnings. But seriously, this thread is pretty harsh on the State Bar. If there's any defense for their conduct, why don't they take a minute to 'splain themselves here?

Because they don't care what you think. And they don't have to.

[Acala]

I'd deregulate the legal profession similarly. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386311-Why-Does-the-Public-Tolerate-the-Bar-Association-Monopolies&p=4584505#post4584505) I wouldn't abolish them altogether -- I'd allow them continue functioning as a circle-jerk, just without the special privileges currently granted to them by the government.


That's my personal concern here.


A lawyer could show that such "meritless claims" were in fact meritless.


What have you heard or seen which has given you the idea that the State Bar "investigates and makes a decision about such claims"? Compare:


(quoting from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BlyN7z7AQCSNjzmHNPN3KHnRXODB0oW0Fcsp5sGJpKQ/edit)

Having perused your documents, it appears that you have had four different lawyers paid for by the taxpayers, you have rejected each one, and the State Bar is not interested in pursuing your complaints against them. Not the most sympathetic set of facts for you. Of course I understand that since it is a Federal case, the chances are that the "crime" with which you have been charged should not even be a crime. And I understand that it is a sham to operate a system that makes peaceful conduct a crime, makes defense so complicated that only an expert can do it well, establishes a monopoly so the cost of hiring a lawyer is prohibitive, and then - out of sham compassion - purports to provide you with a free defense which is in reality often inadequate and certainly not up to par with what money can buy. Still, your pattern of facts is not likely to elicit much interest. Criminal defendants are rarely happy with their free lawyers.

[jbauer]

In fairness, and I'm not saying they are doing right by dismissing things. But if they listed each complaint that was dismissed couldn't I as a competitor complain that each atorney in AZ was a baby rapeing, puppy eating, kangaroo killer.


I loath it with you, and I'm all for airing the facts. The database you cite omits complaints which the State Bar has dismissed, and the database omits evidence substantiating such complaints. Case in point: in this exchange (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhMTFael9RYm1Sanc), the State Bar admits MacGuineas filed complaints against attorneys Gary Kneip, Richard Lougee, and Taylor Francis, and the State Bar admits that it "dismissed" those complaints. But the database you cite gives no justification as to why the State Bar dismissed those complaints, and it contains no record of those complaints.

In particular, the database omits complaints which the State Bar has dismissed arbitrarily or corruptly.

(edited for conciseness and clarity)

[better-dead-than-fed]

... But if they listed each complaint that was dismissed couldn't I as a competitor complain that each atorney in AZ was a baby rapeing, puppy eating, kangaroo killer.
You could do that, but then each accused attorney could point out that your complaints were unsubstantiated by any evidence.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I get a monthly rag that lists the names of lawyers who have been disciplined and why. ...
From that, how do you infer that the State Bar actually "investigates" all the complaints it receives? (cf. "... the law does not require the State Bar to investigate complaints.... the Bar was exercising its right not to investigate...." Unethical Lawyers (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BlyN7z7AQCSNjzmHNPN3KHnRXODB0oW0Fcsp5sGJpKQ/edit))

[better-dead-than-fed]

Having perused your documents, it appears that you have had four different lawyers paid for by the taxpayers, you have rejected each one, and the State Bar is not interested in pursuing your complaints against them. Not the most sympathetic set of facts for you. ...
I take this to mean you'd be more sympathetic in a case where the defendant silently was denied his right-to-counsel by only one unethical lawyer? (Most defendants are illiterate.) If I understand your position correctly, your sympathy-calculus seems backwards to me.

[Acala]

From that, how do you infer that the State Bar actually "investigates" all the complaints it receives? (cf. "... the law does not require the State Bar to investigate complaints.... the Bar was exercising its right not to investigate...." Unethical Lawyers (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BlyN7z7AQCSNjzmHNPN3KHnRXODB0oW0Fcsp5sGJpKQ/edit))

Your question was what evidence do I have that the bar investigates complaints and my answer was that they actually issue discipline based on their investigation and I see lists of the punished. So investigations ARE happening. I can't opine as to how much or how thorough.

[Acala]

I take this to mean you'd be more sympathetic in a case where the defendant silently was denied his right-to-counsel by only one unethical lawyer? (Most defendants are illiterate.) If I understand your position correctly, your sympathy-calculus seems backwards to me.

I don't know much of anything about your case, but as a former District Court law clerk, I have enough experience with prisoner petitions to know that the impression given by someone who rejects at least four lawyers in a row is that he will never be satisified with any lawyer. I absolutely could be wrong in your case and am just giving you my impression.

I also know that public defenders are typically over-worked, underpaid, and are doing a job that nobody appreciates. Some suck, some are good, some are assholes, some are doing that job because they really care about justice. If you have gone through four of them, the odds are you had at least one decent one (given the circumstances) and the odds are against them ALL being unethical. Just my impression but my impression is probably reasonably close to the impression the same facts would give to the lawyers at the State Bar.

If you expect a free government lawyer to defend you like Race Horse Haynes, you are destined to be disappointed. And the State Bar is not going to get excited about somebody who is essentially complaining about the whole public defender system.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... the State Bar is not going to get excited about somebody who is essentially complaining about the whole public defender system.

But MacGuineas's complaints addressed to the State Bar were not "about the whole public defender system"; they weren't about that literally, and they weren't about that in essence either. This would be patently evident, but it's not only because the State Bar is concealing MacGuineas's complaints from the public.

The issue isn't whether the State Bar is "going to get excited"; the issue is whether the State Bar is going to investigate evidence of violations of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct).


... If you expect a free government lawyer to defend you like Race Horse Haynes, you are destined to be disappointed. ...

But the issue isn't whether lawyers are defending "like Race Horse Haynes"; the issue is whether lawyers are complying with Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct).


... I have enough experience with prisoner petitions to know that the impression given by someone who rejects at least four lawyers in a row is that he will never be satisified with any lawyer. ...

But the issue isn't whether a defendant will ever "be satisfied with any lawyer"; the issue is whether lawyers are complying with Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct).


... If you have gone through four of them, the odds are you had at least one decent one (given the circumstances) and the odds are against them ALL being unethical. ...

You honestly believe that even one in four lawyers is willing to highlight a Chief U.S. District Judge's professional misconduct, for the sake of a defendant? You believe that a lawyer who does that will ever get his turn to sit as a judge?

[Acala]

But MacGuineas's complaints addressed to the State Bar were not "about the whole public defender system"; they weren't about that literally, and they weren't about that in essence either. This would be patently evident, but it's not only because the State Bar is concealing MacGuineas's complaints from the public.

The issue isn't whether the State Bar is "going to get excited"; the issue is whether the State Bar is going to investigate evidence of violations of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct).



But the issue isn't whether lawyers are defending "like Race Horse Haynes"; the issue is whether lawyers are complying with Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct).



But the issue isn't whether a defendant will ever "be satisfied with any lawyer"; the issue is whether lawyers are complying with Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct).



You honestly believe that even one in four lawyers is willing to highlight a Chief U.S. District Judge's professional misconduct, for the sake of a defendant? You believe that a lawyer who does that will ever get his turn to sit as a judge?

You are missing my point. When you have complaints about FOUR lawyers, the impression is that your complaint is no longer about the individuals but about ALL the lawyers in the system. From the State Bar's point of view, the lawyer discipline system is not the proper vehicle for reform of the PD system.

I don't know anything about this case but I can tell you that I believe that it is almost NEVER in the interest of my client to criticize the judge. Even if the judge would be driven to recuse himself as a result of my claims, the judge that replaces him is going to make my client pay. They stick together. So the defense lawyers may be acting in the best interest of their client by not accusing the judge of ethical violations.

And by the way, you don't get to be a district court judge by being an ass-kissing PD. Federal judges are appointed by the President and by tradition based on the advice of the Senators from the State. So you get to be a federal judge by playing party politics and being a major fund raiser.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... I don't know anything about this case ...

the media saves its coverage for acts of sensational violence instead of government actions inviting such violence. cf Timothy McVeigh's 1996-Nov-26 letter (http://better-dead-than-fed.tumblr.com/post/29839646171/once-the-fbi-can-control-the-show-of-information).

[better-dead-than-fed]

... I don't know anything about this case ...

Assuming you're referring to CR-07-1838-TUC-RCC (USA v MacGuineas) (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhVy14QXdrWkM4dWM), it's never been a "case" in the complies-with-sixth-amendment sense. More like a secrect abduction. No pretense of a "public trial"; rather MacGuineas's testimony has been concealed from the public, for no legitimate reason. See Motion to Unseal Documents (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhaFJ4aEJKMW5JZDA) and MacGuineas's email with attorney Vicki Brambl (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhZFdwQmVCZktxQTg) (Brambl has failed to reply).

[better-dead-than-fed]

... Even if the judge would be driven to recuse himself as a result of my claims, the judge that replaces him is going to make my client pay. They stick together. ...

... and the State Bar enables it all, by concealing complaints from the public; and are you not making excuses for the State Bar's participation in this racketeering scheme?


... When you have complaints about FOUR lawyers, the impression is that your complaint is no longer about the individuals but about ALL the lawyers in the system. ...

Regardless of what "impression" anyone is taking, MacGuineas's complaints addressed to the State Bar were not "about ALL the lawyers in the system". This would be patently evident, except that the State Bar is concealing MacGuineas's complaints from the public. See MacGuineas's pertinent court-filings:

- docket 51 (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhcGs4TTFxV0htd0U);
- docket 70 (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhamhjLTdNYXhpU1k);
- docket 130 (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhWEp5TmgtWTZVVGc); and
- docket 176 (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5ZYXb_HdIQhbURMRHYzR2xRdWM).

Clearly, MacGuineas is making no charges "about ALL the lawyers in the system". It would be perverted to argue, as you appear to, that "the lawyer discipline system is not the proper vehicle" for having MacGuineas's allegations investigated.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... they don't care what you think. And they don't have to.

They recognize (at least in Section 11 of the "Preamble" to their Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.azbar.org/ethics/rulesofprofessionalconduct/preamble)) that enforcement of their own rules is "an important force in preserving government under law". In other words, acquiescence invites this (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/04/us/seeking-motive-in-the-killing-of-8-insane-ramblings-are-little-help.html). ("When you hire a consultant or an attorney you don't hire for the purpose of getting raped and than having all your efforts toward legal recourse totally thwarted....").

[better-dead-than-fed]

... Federal judges are appointed by the President and by tradition based on the advice of the Senators from the State. So you get to be a federal judge by playing party politics and being a major fund raiser.

MacGuineas's judge was nominated by Bill Clinton, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raner_Collins) and Al Gore's daughter Karenna is MacGuineas's ex-girlfriend. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZlNtxnJPG2qjHjYoqnNclE4747P747hd0x79eNz5-SE/edit) ("Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. . . . [T]o perform its high function in the best way `justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.'" -- Estes v. Texas, 381 US 532 - Supreme Court 1965 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8621612766167971303&q=381+U.S.+532+&hl=en&as_sdt=2,3), at 543)