New Rule Tightens Ethics Complaint Restrictions for Lawyers

The Arizona Supreme Court has implemented changes to the process for filing ethics complaints against attorneys, which will limit who can initiate such complaints. This decision, made on December 4, aims to mitigate potential misuse of the complaint system amid rising concerns over political motivations.

Under the new rule, only clients and individuals with firsthand knowledge of alleged attorney misconduct can file formal complaints with the State Bar of Arizona. This includes judges who observe improper conduct during legal proceedings. The rule creates two distinct classes of complainants, raising questions about transparency and accountability.

Complaints can still be raised by others, but the State Bar retains discretion over whether to investigate. Importantly, those filing complaints will no longer receive updates on the progress or outcome of any investigations conducted by the Bar. They also lose the ability to challenge any resolutions reached with the attorney in question.

David Byers, head of the Administrative Office of the Courts, justified the rule’s introduction, citing 40 election-related complaints since 2020 as indicative of potential partisan abuse of the system. He emphasized a need to prevent the complaint procedure from being exploited for political gain.

Despite the rationale for these adjustments, feedback from public comments largely criticized the decision. Former Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct director George Riemer noted that the volume of complaints should not single-handedly determine changes to existing regulations.

Similarly, Ralph Adams, a retired senior bar counsel, argued that the First Amendment supports the rights of complainants to voice concerns, regardless of their firsthand knowledge. He highlighted that during the same period encompassing the 40 complaints, the Bar processed over 9,200 complaints, suggesting that the new regulations might restrict necessary oversight.

Chief Justice Ann Timmer acknowledged the uptick in complaints against Republican lawyers post-election but clarified she had no evidence of organized partisan attacks. She expressed concern about how the current system may inadvertently encourage individuals lacking direct knowledge to submit grievances.

Timmer emphasized that the rules are designed for situations where complainants have directly observed unethical behavior, typically limited to clients or judges involved in legal matters. She warned that unlimited complaint filings could distract the Bar from effectively addressing significant disciplinary issues.

While acknowledging the option to increase funding to manage complaints, Timmer stated that attorney dues in Arizona are already among the highest in the nation. The new rule received some support, notably from Senate President Warren Petersen, who warned against the potential for partisan weaponization of the complaint system.

Critics remain vocal, with international human rights attorney Dianne Post condemning moves perceived as undermining the Bar’s authority. She urged the court to resist compromising ethical standards and urged the court to uphold its constitutional duty amid political pressures.