LAWYER REGULATION
in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice. Judicial
immunity facilitates the proper
administration of justice as it allows
judges to perform judicial functions independently and without
fear of personal consequences. Ms.
Alexander’s conduct impeded the
proper administration of justice by
placing all county judges at risk for
having to defend a civil-damages
lawsuit if the ruling displeased
MCAO.
In addition, Ms. Alexander
failed to promptly respond to
requests for information during
the investigation of the matter in
violation of Rule 53, Ariz.R.S.Ct.
The Court found in aggravation: multiple offenses; bad faith
obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with rules or orders of the
disciplinary agency; and refusal to
acknowledge the wrongful nature
of the conduct. Ms. Alexander had
no prior disciplinary record.This
was the only factor found to mitigate the misconduct.
Based on the unique circum-
stances of this case the Court
forthcoming. Ms. Alexander’s lack
of legal skill and knowledge and her
inability to sufficiently attain com-
petency through study and associa-
tion was her defense of the legally
deficient complaint and proposed
amended complaint.
Ms. Alexander also violated ER
1. 7(a)( 1), which prohibits a lawyer
from representing one client directly adverse to another client. She
violated this rule by suing the
Board while her office simultaneously served as the Board of
Supervisors’ lawyer. Arizona
statutes require MCAO to act as
the Board’s legal advisor and represent it in civil disputes. The
lawyer–client relationship between
MCAO and the Board continued
during the life of the RICO lawsuit
and pursuing the RICO litigation
while MCAO represented the
Board violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Ms. Alexander’s conduct violat-
ed ER 8. 4(d) by maintaining the
RICO lawsuit against judges, who
were absolutely immune from civil-
damages lawsuits. It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to engage
ed the filing of a RICO lawsuit that
alleged the defendants committed
acts of bribery and extortion to
hinder the investigation and prose-
cution of elected officials, county
employees and their attorneys con-
cerning the funding and construc-
tion of the court tower in Maricopa
County. After the initial filing
of the RICO complaint, Ms.
Alexander was assigned to substi-
tute for the original lawyer despite
having no prior trial experience and
only minimal knowledge of RICO.
Ms. Alexander would thereafter
draft and file a first-amended
complaint adding two additional
counts. The pleading was rejected
and after a series of motions and
responses, Ms. Alexander filed a
notice voluntarily dismissing the
complaint.
ER 3. 1 prohibits a lawyer from
bringing or defending an action
that has no good faith basis in law
and fact that is not frivolous. Ms.
Alexander violated ER 3. 1 by main-
taining the RICO lawsuit, both
the complaint and the proposed
amended complaint, which were
legally and factually deficient, and
for failing to sufficiently investigate
the validity of the allegations.
Although Ms. Alexander may have
reasonably believed that the origi-
nal lawyer filing the RICO action
had properly investigated the
RICO allegations before filing the
complaint, Ms. Alexander did not
sufficiently inform herself about
the applicable facts and law to
make good faith and non-frivolous
arguments in maintaining the law-
suit. The evidence established that
Ms. Alexander was well aware
when she substituted into the
action that the complaint was defi-
cient.
Ms. Alexander violated ER 1. 1
when taking the assignment to
the RICO action. Ms. Alexander
lacked the legal knowledge and
skill to represent Mr. Thomas and
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe
Arpaio in the RICO lawsuit. Ms.
Alexander had minimal litigation
experience and had never tried a
case. Although she may have
believed that she would have the
support of experienced RICO
counsel, it became apparent rather
quickly that no such support was
Adams & Clark, PC
Attorneys at Law
ADAMS & CLARK, PC
520 E. Portland Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, Arizona 85004
O 602-258-3542 | F 602-258-1377 | W adamsclark.com | E thefirm@adamsclark.com
RALPH ADAMS, ESQ.
Former Senior Counsel, Utah State Bar
Former Senior Bar Counsel, State Bar of Arizona
24 Years of Practice
KAREN CLARK, ESQ.
Former Ethics Counsel, State Bar of Arizona
Former Senior Bar Counsel, State Bar of Arizona
24 Years of Practice
Our experienced attorneys have each been practicing law for more than 25 years.
We have more than 35 years combined experience in discipline and ethics issues.
We’ve helped hundreds of lawyers with their professional licensing matters.
We’d like to help you, too.
NEED HELP WITH A STATE BAR COMPLAINT?
