More Legal Follies

Sanctions for bogus election lawsuits spurs GOP proposal to protect attorneys from punishment https://t.co/hp4B1zPqfX

— Raw Story (@RawStory) February 14, 2023

The bill from Sen. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, prohibits both the State Bar and the Arizona Supreme Court from “infringing” or “impeding” on the “political speech” of an attorney or an attorney’s clients by disciplining them or revoking their licenses for “bringing a good faith, non frivolous claim that is based in law and fact to court.”

If they’re deemed to be in violation of the proposed law, they would forfeit 10% of their revenue. For the Bar, that would come from the money it raises through attorney membership dues, while the Supreme Court would see its budget cut as punishment. The penalties would equate to about $1 million for the Bar and nearly $10 million for the Supreme Court.

Courts typically enforce civil laws like the one Kern is proposing, but it’s unclear who would determine if the court or the Bar is in violation of this measure. The legislation is silent on the matter.

I truly don't know how the Bar functions in Arizona (it varies from state to state).  I can say (and this seems to be true in Arizona, from context) that in Texas the State Bar cannot revoke a license without a court proceeding (i.e., a lawsuit).  Such a suit is, IIRC, being pursued against Sidney Powell now, for example.

As the Arizona Bar says:

“Attorneys are not disciplined for bringing good faith claims,” the State Bar said in a statement provided to the Arizona Mirror. “The professional ethics rules governing the conduct of legal professionals prohibit attorneys from bringing frivolous litigation that is not in good faith.”

Whether or not a claim is made in "good faith" is what courts call a fact question:  it is one upon which reasonable minds can differ, so a trier of fact (jury or just a judge) must decide what the facts are in any individual case.  Which is where this proposed law becomes farcical, because if the court decides (again, through jury or judge alone) that there was no "good faith" in bringing the claim, and that it was "frivolous" (another fact question)...isn't that what the courts in Arizona are doing already?

The alternative is to turn Arizona courtrooms into a free-for-all where any lawyer can bring any claim they want because no one can question whether their claim is frivolous or not made in good faith because "political speech."  Which even this bozo state Senator doesn't want to do. 

So this is purely performative.  It's not meant to do anything, just look like it's doing something.  🤡

(From the argument that the Supreme Court of Arizona and the State Bar should be liable, I'm guessing Arizona's Bar is set up very much like the State Bar in Texas, which is an adjunct of the Supreme Court of Texas.  The Texas Supreme Court licenses lawyers, but administers the Bar exam and all disciplinary procedures against licensed lawyers through the State Bar, which lawyers pay dues to in order to maintain their license.  I still pay a pittance because my status is "Retired."  Sounds like Arizona lawyers do the same thing, so I'm assuming the comparison to Texas practice is not unsound.)