by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez and Michael Kiefer - Sept. 13, 2011 12:00 AM - The Arizona Republic
Andrew Thomas wasn't there to hear it when the independent counsel for the State Bar of Arizona laid out a case against him that could end his legal career.
Thomas faces disbarment, but the former Maricopa County attorney did not attend Monday's opening statements in his disciplinary hearing at the Arizona Supreme Court.
His co-defendants and former deputies, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander, sat silently in the front row of the gallery in a dark-paneled courtroom as other attorneys explained why they should or should not face sanctions for their investigations of or legal complaints against judges, county supervisors and others they believed engaged in "corruption."
"The evidence and testimony that we will present will establish a four-year period of prosecutorial abuse by Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon," said John Gleason, the attorney prosecuting the case. "Under the direction and supervision of Mr. Thomas, he and Ms. Aubuchon engaged in personal retribution against their enemies."
"If you crossed paths with the county attorney, Sheriff (Joe) Arpaio, or former (sheriff's) Chief Deputy David Hendershott, you should expect to be sued, criminally charged, or both, by the county attorney," Gleason said.
"The evidence will show that the primary purpose of the prosecutions was to punish those individuals with whom Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon disagreed."
A three-member panel will weigh evidence in the disciplinary hearing, which could stretch into November. The burden is on state Bar counsel to prove the allegations against the three attorneys. The panel must make a decision on their fate within 30 days of the last day of the hearing.
The three former prosecutors are charged with a total of 33 ethical violations stemming from actions against other county officials and judges between 2006 and 2010. Charges against them include conflicts of interest; filing criminal and civil cases to embarrass or burden rivals, or filing without probable cause or sufficient evidence; criminal conduct; and conduct involving dishonesty and fraud.
Among the allegations are that Thomas and Aubuchon filed bribery and obstruction charges against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe without probable cause; that they pursued a grand-jury investigation of Donahoe, county supervisors and other officials despite conflicts of interest; and that they filed misdemeanor charges against Supervisor Don Stapley in 2008 despite the statute of limitations having lapsed.
Alexander's role is limited to joining Thomas and Aubuchon in what Gleason described as a "meritless and frivolous" federal-racketeering lawsuit against officials and judges.
The three also are accused of failing to cooperate with the Bar investigation, and instead attempting to delay and obstruct the extensive initial investigation conducted by Gleason and his team.
Gleason said he and his co-counsel, James Sudler, would prove their case with new testimony from judges, investigators with sheriff's and county attorney's offices, county supervisors, and others to show the depths of the unethical conduct. The disciplinary hearing will be the first time most of the witnesses will tell their stories under oath.
Gleason promised a glimpse into a "Bizarro World" of investigative techniques, where indictments were written before investigations began, and where tips came from newspaper articles, not shoe-leather detective work. Search warrants, he said, were drafted based on "creative writing . . . and a little fluff above, and a little fluff below."
But Thomas' lawyer, Don Wilson, said Thomas sincerely believed he was rooting out corruption at the highest levels of county government.
"He tried to investigate it, he tried to prosecute it," Wilson said, but, "he was stonewalled and stymied. He confronted bitter and powerful antagonists. He confronted a hostile judiciary."
The consequences, Wilson said, were that the county Board of Supervisors stripped Thomas of his civil litigation department and its budget, and interfered with his ability to hire special prosecutors to try the cases against them.
Thomas brought charges against Stapley in 2008, Wilson said, because of what he believed were improper dealings among Stapley, then-Presiding Superior Court Judge Barbara Mundell, and private attorney Tom Irvine, who represented both the county and the courts in planning a $340 million court-tower project in downtown Phoenix.
Aubuchon's attorney, Ed Moriarity, offered a summary of what he believes was a conspiracy among politicians and judges to bring his client to this point.
Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil has already ruled that the defendants cannot gather new evidence to try to prove that they were right in bringing cases against county officials. Still, Moriarity hinted that he would still try to prove that all of Aubuchon's actions were justified but were thwarted.
"Let's face it head-on: This is not a normal case . . . this is a political case. You will see the evidence and know what I mean by the time I am finished," he said.
Furthermore, Moriarity said, the press and even the Bar have distorted facts of the case for a "selective prosecution."
Alexander's lawyer, Scott Zwillinger, argued his client should not be part of the hearing. She was simply doing her job, he said, and was working at the direction of her boss.
She was drafted into the racketeering suit, he said, because Thomas told her it was a "crisis." Alexander's initial role in the racketeering suit was to research whether Aubuchon could sue the same people she was prosecuting criminally.
The answer was no, Zwillinger said, at which point Alexander was asked to take over the racketeering case, even against her better judgment.
Zwillinger questioned why Alexander was singled out for disciplinary proceedings when her supervisor and private attorneys from consulting law firms were not.
"Each of the charges brought against Rachel will fail," Zwillinger said. "Why is Rachel here? The answer is: she shouldn't be."
The hearing continues today with testimony scheduled from retired Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fields, former Deputy County Attorney Sally Wells and Irvine.
Showing posts with label Rachel Alexander. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Alexander. Show all posts
Monday, September 19, 2011
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Andrew Thomas and Lisa Aubuchon Should be Disbarred, State Investigator Finds
Originally printed in New Times Blogs by Ray Stern, December 6, 2010
Maybe tailing the investigator for the Arizona State Supreme Court was a bad idea.
A probable-cause panelist for the state high court, spurred by a report from investigator John Gleason, has ordered disciplinary procedures to begin against former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his former deputy, Lisa Aubuchon.
In a 76-page report presented to the panelist, Gleason notes that if the allegations against Thomas and Aubuchon were proven, then they should be disbarred.
Such a disciplinary move would be a major blow to Thomas, who quit his office in what turned out to be an unsuccessful bid for state Attorney General this year. Disbarment would mean Thomas and Aubuchon couldn't work as lawyers in Arizona. Thomas could forget any notion of a political comeback.
The final word on punishment won't be known for several months.
The report by John Gleason is expected to be released by the state Supreme Court at a 2 p.m. news conference.
We don't have the report yet, but a state Supreme Court official confirmed the gist of it to New Times.
The order by Judge Charles Jones, who was appointed this year as a "probable cause panelist" to help sort out the county's legal mess, was filed with the Arizona State Bar this afternoon.
The order is more than a recommendation that Thomas and Aubuchon be disbarred, says the state high court's spokeswoman, Jennifer Liewer. She compared Jones' report to the findings of a grand jury.
The next step will be for Gleason, (brought in from Colorado to avoid a perception of bias), to file formal charges with the bar's new disciplinary judge, William O'Neil. During his investigation, Gleason was tailed by private investigators working for lawyers hired by Aubuchon at public expense.
An Arizona Republic article today suggests that disciplinary action may also be coming for former deputy county attorney and blogger Rachel Alexander.
We can't help but wonder how one of Thomas' chief aides, Barnett Lotstein, would remain unscathed in these proceedings.
In any case, Thomas and crew will have plenty of opportunity to fight and/or appeal their case.
Rick DeBruhl, spokesman for the State Bar, says Gleason will file the charges "in the near future." Typically, this step would occur within 60 days, but in this case it'll likely to happen sooner, he says.
Within 150 days of the charges being filed Thomas and Aubuchon will be given the chance to defend themselves against the allegations in a public "trial" of sorts, DeBruhl says. He adds that the event won't be a "trial," per se, because Thomas and Aubuchon haven't been accused of any crime. Rather, they will fight allegations that they violated the ethical rules of attorneys, he says. Continuing the metaphor, Gleason will act as the "prosecutor," DeBruhl says, and will present the case to a small panel consisting of O'Neil, a lawyer, and a member of the public.
O'Neil could grant time extensions to the process, if he decides it's necessary, DeBruhl adds.
Theoretically, Thomas and Aubuchon could also receive punishment that falls short of disbarment.
DeBruhl says Jones' order could have contained a recommendation for the immediate suspension of the law licenses of Thomas and Aubuchon, but it didn't.
Aubuchon filed a $10 million claim against the county after being fired, and both she and Thomas have set up shop in the Valley as private-practice lawyers.
John Gleason will act as a "prosecutor" of sorts in the disciplinary hearing against Thomas and Aubuchon.
As far as we're concerned, this should be a slam-dunk case for disbarment. Thomas, for example, filed a criminal complaint (with Aubuchon's help) against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe that alleged bribery. No evidence of anything remotely resembling bribery ever surfaced, and the facts surrounding the case seem to show that Thomas used the charge to avoid a conflict-of-interest hearing against him by Donahoe.
Thomas, working as the legal arm to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's politically minded "anti-corruption" task force, also brought charges against County Supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley.
All of those charges were dropped after a judge ruled that Thomas had serious conflicts in the cases.
Maybe tailing the investigator for the Arizona State Supreme Court was a bad idea.
A probable-cause panelist for the state high court, spurred by a report from investigator John Gleason, has ordered disciplinary procedures to begin against former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his former deputy, Lisa Aubuchon.
In a 76-page report presented to the panelist, Gleason notes that if the allegations against Thomas and Aubuchon were proven, then they should be disbarred.
Such a disciplinary move would be a major blow to Thomas, who quit his office in what turned out to be an unsuccessful bid for state Attorney General this year. Disbarment would mean Thomas and Aubuchon couldn't work as lawyers in Arizona. Thomas could forget any notion of a political comeback.
The final word on punishment won't be known for several months.
The report by John Gleason is expected to be released by the state Supreme Court at a 2 p.m. news conference.
We don't have the report yet, but a state Supreme Court official confirmed the gist of it to New Times.
The order by Judge Charles Jones, who was appointed this year as a "probable cause panelist" to help sort out the county's legal mess, was filed with the Arizona State Bar this afternoon.
The order is more than a recommendation that Thomas and Aubuchon be disbarred, says the state high court's spokeswoman, Jennifer Liewer. She compared Jones' report to the findings of a grand jury.
The next step will be for Gleason, (brought in from Colorado to avoid a perception of bias), to file formal charges with the bar's new disciplinary judge, William O'Neil. During his investigation, Gleason was tailed by private investigators working for lawyers hired by Aubuchon at public expense.
An Arizona Republic article today suggests that disciplinary action may also be coming for former deputy county attorney and blogger Rachel Alexander.
We can't help but wonder how one of Thomas' chief aides, Barnett Lotstein, would remain unscathed in these proceedings.
In any case, Thomas and crew will have plenty of opportunity to fight and/or appeal their case.
Rick DeBruhl, spokesman for the State Bar, says Gleason will file the charges "in the near future." Typically, this step would occur within 60 days, but in this case it'll likely to happen sooner, he says.
Within 150 days of the charges being filed Thomas and Aubuchon will be given the chance to defend themselves against the allegations in a public "trial" of sorts, DeBruhl says. He adds that the event won't be a "trial," per se, because Thomas and Aubuchon haven't been accused of any crime. Rather, they will fight allegations that they violated the ethical rules of attorneys, he says. Continuing the metaphor, Gleason will act as the "prosecutor," DeBruhl says, and will present the case to a small panel consisting of O'Neil, a lawyer, and a member of the public.
O'Neil could grant time extensions to the process, if he decides it's necessary, DeBruhl adds.
Theoretically, Thomas and Aubuchon could also receive punishment that falls short of disbarment.
DeBruhl says Jones' order could have contained a recommendation for the immediate suspension of the law licenses of Thomas and Aubuchon, but it didn't.
Aubuchon filed a $10 million claim against the county after being fired, and both she and Thomas have set up shop in the Valley as private-practice lawyers.
John Gleason will act as a "prosecutor" of sorts in the disciplinary hearing against Thomas and Aubuchon.
As far as we're concerned, this should be a slam-dunk case for disbarment. Thomas, for example, filed a criminal complaint (with Aubuchon's help) against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe that alleged bribery. No evidence of anything remotely resembling bribery ever surfaced, and the facts surrounding the case seem to show that Thomas used the charge to avoid a conflict-of-interest hearing against him by Donahoe.
Thomas, working as the legal arm to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's politically minded "anti-corruption" task force, also brought charges against County Supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley.
All of those charges were dropped after a judge ruled that Thomas had serious conflicts in the cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
