Refuting the Bar’s misinformation about consumer protection and HB2221.

  1. The Bill does not eliminate any consumer protection programs.
  1. Most importantly, the Bill does not eliminate the best consumer protection program, which is lawyer regulation that disciplines unethical lawyers by taking them out of circulation. Lawyer regulation remains a requirement and a function of the Arizona Supreme Court.
  1. The Bill does not eliminate the Client Protection Fund. The Arizona Supreme Court established the Client Protection Fund in 1961. It is a separate entity from the State Bar. It is controlled by the Court as part of the Court’s regulation of attorneys. The yearly assessments are paid to the Fund by lawyers and are not State Bar dues. So as they have for the past 55 years, Arizona consumers will still be able to file claims for losses caused by the dishonest conduct of a lawyer.
  1. The Bill does not eliminate any conservatorship programs over the practices of lawyers who have died, disappeared or become disabled or disbarred. Any such programs are subject to Arizona Supreme Court rule not the State Bar. And such programs are consistent with the Bill’s provisions concerning enforcing attorney ethical rules and maintaining attorney records.
  1. The Bill does not eliminate the fee dispute arbitration program even though it is a program that less than 1% of lawyers use. Moreover, like almost every State Bar program, the Fee Arbitration Program is staffed almost entirely by volunteer lawyers and public members.
  1. The Bill does not eliminate community programs such as Arizona Stand Down, which is not a State Bar program but an alliance of community-based, unincorporated organizations that come together with hundreds of agencies and thousands of community volunteers to help homeless veterans. Arizona lawyers volunteer for Arizona Stand Down just as they do for the Phoenix 12 News television program, Lawyers On Call. State Bar management likes to take credit for these programs. But they are dependent on the goodwill, time and civic mindedness of Arizona lawyers not on the State Bar.

3 thoughts on “Refuting the Bar’s misinformation about consumer protection and HB2221.

  1. The Arizona State Bar does a lot of things that are just vindictive, that hurt lawyers, do not protect the public, do not serve legitimate ends, are purely political in nature, are intended to mislead or misrepresent the facts, and are intended to harass and embarrass, if not intimidate, lawyers in violation of both the Disciplinary Rules and the Lawyer’s Creed.

    I am now working on a second response to a bar complaint filed by a vindictive person who was never my client, when we won the case and our actual client is happy. The AZ Bar elected to proceed on this frivolous bar complaint 12 business day after my November 16 testimony before the House.

    One bone of contention is a badly reasoned 3 page dismissal order in which the judge’s reasoning is off the charts horrible. Being a reasonable attorney, I did not care how badly reasoned the opinion was, because we got the dismissal. It’s about getting a good result for my client, not my ego.

    So we took the High Road and let it go.

    But, thanks to the Arizona State Bar’s commitment to protecting the feelings of a random, unreasonable non-client and non-lawyer, I have to explain in excruciating detail how many mistakes it is possible for one judge to make in 3 pages of paper. The fact that the Bar does not understand this without me explaining it to them, and it’s just basic civil procedure, is mind-blowing. And aggravating. I feel harrassed.

    This vindictive, ill-considered bar compliant, intended to hurt me, is going to gratuitously embarrass this merit-selected judge, expose the complainant for what he is, and protect zero members of the public, unless the Judicial Conduct Commission goes after this very confused and very wrong judge.

    Every time I try to take the High Road in Arizona and walk away from a bizarre legal and ethical situation and move on, they just can’t accept my willingness to walk away. They won’t let me because they aren’t smart. Power and control freaks can’t seem to grasp what is ultimately in their own best interests, creating unnecessary misery until they are ousted for being the small, mean, vestigial, useless power mongers that they are.

  2. I might add that, separate and apart from other free speech considerations, Arizona lawyers can be punished for private speech on their own time, the very definition of overreach by Big Brother.

  3. I might add that, separate and apart from other free speech considerations, Arizona lawyers can be punished for private speech on their own time, the very definition of overreach by Big Brother.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *