REINSTATED ATTORNEYS
EDWARD D. FITZHUGH
Bar No. 007138; File Nos. 11-1877,
11-2635
PDJ No. 2012-9079
By order of the presiding disciplinary judge dated Dec. 6, 2013,
Edward D. Fitzhugh, Tempe, was
reinstated as an active member of
the State Bar.
GARETH C. HYNDMAN II
Bar No. 19500; File No. 12-9020
PDJ No. 2012-9020
On Nov. 26, 2013, the Arizona
Supreme Court ordered Gareth C.
Hyndman reinstated as an active
member of the State Bar of
Arizona as of the date of the order.
Mr. Hyndman was placed on probation for two years and ordered
to participate in the State Bar’s
Member Assistance Program. In
the event that Mr. Hyndman
returns to the practice of law in
Arizona, he must immediately
notify the State Bar’s Law Office
Management Assistance Program
and enter into a LOMAP contract.
The terms shall include the restriction that Mr. Hyndman may not
practice as a solo practitioner.
RICHARD C. PARKS, II
Bar No. 10088; File No. 13-9037
PDJ No. 2013-9037
By Arizona Supreme Court order
dated Nov. 26, 2013, Richard C.
Parks II, Phoenix, was reinstated
as an active State Bar member, and
placed on probation for two years,
effective the date of the order.
SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL T. REYNOLDS
Bar No. 016719; File No. 13-9088
PDJ No. 2013-9088
By order of the presiding disciplinary judge filed Oct. 30, 2013,
Michael T. Reynolds was transferred to disability inactive status.
The State Bar did not oppose the
transfer. The presiding disciplinary
judge determined that clear and
convincing evidence demonstrated
that Mr. Reynolds lacked the
capacity to adequately discharge
his duties to his clients, the State
Bar, the courts and the public.
LISA M. AUBUCHON
Bar No. 013141; File No. 09-2296
PDJ No. 2011-9002
Sup. Ct. No. SB-12-0035-AP
By Arizona Supreme Court
opinion dated Sept. 17, 2013, Lisa
M. Aubuchon, Phoenix, was disbarred. The Supreme Court
affirmed the findings of fact and
conclusions of law issued by a disciplinary panel.
Ms. Aubuchon joined the
Maricopa County Attorney’s
Office (“MCAO”) in 1996, where
she served as a prosecutor until
2004 when she was promoted and
served as chief of the pretrial division until she left in 2010.
In 2006, the MCAO was
involved in a number of well-pub-licized disputes, lawsuits, investigations and criminal prosecutions
involving members of the
Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors, Maricopa County
Superior Court judges and others.
The disciplinary proceedings
focused on Ms. Aubuchon’s role in
certain criminal investigations,
prosecutions and a federal civil
racketeering (“RICO”) lawsuit.
In November 2008, Ms.
Aubuchon obtained an indictment
charging the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors’ chairman,
Don Stapley, with 118 criminal
violations relating to his public
financial disclosures dating back to
1994. The case was assigned to
Judge Kenneth Fields. Ms.
Aubuchon unsuccessfully moved
for his recusal and sought to interview Judge Fields to support her
motion. Judge Fields dismissed 51
misdemeanor charges for lack of
merit. The state, through different
counsel, later conceded that the
statute of limitations barred 44 of
the charges. Ms. Aubuchon knew
that the statute of limitations had
expired on many of the charges
when she sought the indictment in
November 2008. Ms. Aubuchon’s
conduct violated ER 8. 4(d) as it
was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In December 2009, Ms.
Aubuchon filed a RICO lawsuit on
behalf of the county attorney,
Andrew Thomas, and Maricopa
County sheriff, Joseph Arpaio. In
the suit, Ms. Aubuchon alleged
that the Board of Supervisors, its
members, four Maricopa County
Superior Court judges, and others
conspired to hinder the investiga-
tion and prosecution of elected
officials, county employees, and
their attorneys concerning the
funding and construction of the
court tower in Maricopa County.
Ms. Aubuchon had a potential
conflict of interest and the case was
re-assigned to Rachel Alexander.
The case was later voluntarily dis-
missed. The disciplinary panel con-
cluded that Ms. Aubuchon, along
with Mr. Thomas and Ms.
Alexander, pursued the RICO
action to retaliate against the
named defendants and to intimi-
date the judges of the Superior
Court.
In January 2009, Judge Gary
Donahoe was named the presiding
judge for the Maricopa County
Superior Court criminal division.
In that position he made rulings
adverse to MCAO and the
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
(“MCSO”). MCSO filed a judicial
conduct complaint against Judge
Donahoe on November 30, 2009,
and Ms. Aubuchon filed the civil
RICO complaint against Judge
Donahoe on December 1, 2009.
About the same time, Judge
Donahoe had scheduled a hearing
on December 9 concerning various
motions regarding MCAO’s
authority to appoint independent
special deputy county attorneys to
pursue a grand jury investigation of
alleged acts of county corruption.
On the morning of the hearing,
Ms. Aubuchon filed a criminal
complaint against Judge Donahoe
charging him with hindering prosecution, obstructing a criminal
investigation, and bribing a public
servant. She moved to have him
recused from grand jury matters
given the pending charges, the
judicial complaint and the RICO
lawsuit. Judge Donahoe vacated
the hearing and recused himself.
Ultimately, the criminal complaint
against Judge Donahoe was dismissed in March 2010.
Ms. Aubuchon violated her
duties as a prosecutor. She know-
ingly filed a criminal complaint
against Judge Donahoe without
probable cause and for the purpos-
es of avoiding the December 9
hearing and securing his recusal
from grand jury matters. The
probable-cause statement filed
with the criminal complaint did
not support the charges and did
not connect Judge Donahoe’s con-
duct to the elements of the charged
crimes. Ms. Aubuchon’s conduct
violated ER 3. 8(a) and ER 8. 4(d).
Ms. Aubuchon also violated ER
8. 4(d) by filing a complaint against
judges who were absolutely
immune from a civil damages law-
suit based on their judicial acts.
The disciplinary panel deter-
mined that disbarment was the pre-
sumptive sanction for the proven
misconduct. The panel found six
aggravating factors and one miti-
gating factor. The panel concluded
that no deviation was warranted
from the presumptive sanction and
ordered Ms. Aubuchon’s disbar-
ment. The Court upheld that deci-
sion.
WILLIAM F. DORAN
Bar No. 014400; File Nos. 12-1643,
13-0901, 13-1277
PDJ No. 2013-9076
By a Dec. 12, 2013, order of the
presiding disciplinary judge,
William F. Doran, Phoenix, was
disbarred. He was ordered to pay
restitution and also was assessed
the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
Mr. Doran disbursed client
funds for his personal use; comin-gled his funds with client funds
when he deposited three US
Treasury checks made payable to
himself into the trust account;
inappropriately disbursed funds by
means other than pre-numbered
check or electronic transfer and did
not maintain a record of such disbursements; and he knowingly
failed to respond to the State Bar.
Mr. Doran also made misrepresentations to the court; failed to
respond to discovery/disclosure
deadlines; failed to respond to a
show-cause petition; failed to prepare a disclosure statement in violation of a court order; made
knowing misrepresentations to his
client, opposing counsel, and the
court; failed to provide the legal
services he was hired to provide;
and caused thousands of dollars of
unnecessary fees and costs to multiple parties and the unnecessary
expenditure of judicial time. Mr.
LAWYER REGULATION
