New Arizona State Bar Rule Restricts Ethics Complainants

An Overview of New Ethics Complaint Rules

Recently, a new rule was passed by Arizona’s Supreme Court, revamping the manner in which ethics complaints against lawyers are handled. The new regulation fundamentally creates two classes of individuals who can lodge complaints to the State Bar of Arizona, largely determining the treatment of lawyer conduct allegations. The change met considerable pushback due to fears of compromised transparency.

The Rule’s Proponents and Its Background

This rule was proposed by David Byers, current manager of the Administrative Office of the Court, originally as a solution to keep the process from being manipulated for partisan interests. This proposal was initiated in response to the increased number of election-related disputes since the 2020 election, which Byers attributed to politically driven motives. The Supreme Court opted to adopt the change on an emergency basis prior to this year’s elections before making it a permanent measure with room for public commentary.

Opposition and Critique

The reception of the rule change mostly involved criticism. The fact that 40 complaints related to elections were filed was, according to attorney George Riemer, no reason to alter the existing rules. He particularly highlighted the absence of a clear definition of who was considered partisan or when a complaint became weaponized for malicious purposes. He expressed that filing a complaint without first-hand knowledge doesn’t necessarily equate to partisanship; the cause for partisanship lies in the complainer’s personal interests.

First Amendment Rights and The Rule’s Implications

Drawing from First Amendment rights, retired former senior Bar counsel Ralph Adams claimed that it’s irrelevant whether someone has first-hand knowledge of the events. He stated that complainants have the right to voice their remarks regarding the filed complaint, which Byers disregarded. He also downplayed Byers’ concern, pointing out that over the four years during which these 40 complaints were filed, the Bar handled more than 9,200 complaints.

Supporters of the Rule Change

Just last year, newly practicing lawyer and Senate President Warren Petersen expressed his backing for the rule change, noting that the current process could also be weaponized for any reason political or otherwise. However, Dianne Post, an international human rights attorney, urged the court to dismiss Peterson’s comments because of his noted involvement in previous legislative efforts to reduce the State Bar’s disciplinary powers — a move she assumed the rule change aimed to appease.

The Future Implication of This Rule

Regardless of the varying viewpoints, the rule change brings forth a potentially detrimental repercussion for transparency and due process. Consequently, its implementation warrants constant vigilance and periodic evaluation to ensure it serves justice rather than undermine it.

Originally Post From https://www.kawc.org/news/2024-12-05/arizona-supreme-court-limits-who-can-file-ethics-complaints-against-lawyers

Read more about this topic at
Ex-Justice O’Connor proposes revamp of Arizona government
Board