Arizona Panel Rejects State Bar Charges Against Medical Marijuana Using Attorney But He Is Still Reprimanded

An Arizona Hearing Board found against the State Bar in all charges brought alleging misconduct but nonetheless imposed a reprimand and probation for two years. 

Mr. Walz violated his obligation pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules to cooperate, furnish information, follow the initial case management conference order of the presiding disciplinary judge, and comply with the duty to file a disclosure statement as part of discovery. His actions were intentional and showed extreme disregard for the profession. His animus towards the State Bar included animus for the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee, the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, the Supreme Court, and the profession.

The rules he violated were the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, not of the State Bar of Arizona. The orders he violated were those of the PDJ, not of the State Bar of Arizona. The probable cause order he distained [sic] was from the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee, not the State Bar.

Every attorney and every judge has an obligation to demonstrate respect for the legal system, not merely by words but by their actions. Every lawyer has a duty to show respect for those who serve the legal system. That obligation of regard is to the position held in the legal system not the person and is not limited to judges but also to other lawyers and public officials. While every lawyer has a concomitant duty, when necessary, to challenge the correctness, integrity or rightness of official action, it is also every lawyer’s responsibility to uphold the legal process because every licensed lawyer is an officer of the legal system. Mr. Walz failed in his obligations as a lawyer.

The panel rejected “unwanted sexual advances” charges

To support this “unwanted sexual advances” allegation, the Panel was referred to specific recordings by the Memorandum. By example, the Panel was referred to Attachment E of the Memorandum. There Mr. Walz asked Complainant, “Where should I sit? I’ll sit on this side.” She responded, “Don’t sit over there.” To which he replied, “Okay. I’ll have to sit somewhere. I’ll sit by all these dirty Kleenex.” Complainant said “Sorry (laughter).” [Attachment E, Page 2:10-15.]

Another cited recording claimed to support this allegation was Mr. Walz stating, “I’m going from Medford to by Carter Lake.” Complainant stated, “Uh-huh. It’s a nice – “Mr. Walz stated, “Oh that’s right. You can see what I’m doing.” Complainant responded, “I know exactly what you’re doing.” Mr. Walz stated, “Because I haven’t been looking at any porn. You’d be really offended. (Laughter) I meant anyway.” [Id., Page 10:18-11:1.]

In another cited recording referenced, Complainant in context is angry with Mr. Walz and claims he just talked to her about going on disability. Prior to the referenced section, Mr. Walz states, “Janet, I’m just wanting to talk about work.” She responds, “Now you want to talk about work?” He states, “I always want to talk about work.” When she asked what work he claims she cannot do, he tells her, “You can’t—you can’t send a request for a police report.” [Attachment F, Page 2:1-24.] After this prior dialogue, the State Bar cites that Complainant suddenly alleged Mr. Walz had “porn on in the office” which he immediately denies. [Id., Page 4:4-15.]

The panel also found insufficient evidence that he advised a criminal client to flee.

And this

Among the contested facts deemed material by the State Bar was listed, “Respondent’s Arizona Medical Marijuana Program ID card expired on September 21, 2012.” The State Bar alleged Respondent requested Complainant obtain marijuana for Respondent from private sources other than marijuana dispensaries registered by the Arizona Department of Health Services and that Complainant did so. Other contested facts deemed material by the State Bar included Respondent was upset because “he could have made other arrangements” when Complainant failed to purchase an ounce of marijuana from Complainant’s acquaintance “David” and Respondent paid money for a marijuana grow-house, partially quoting Respondent saying “maybe I wanted to get some weed out of the investment” and “…considering the money I paid, I wanted to get some marijuana back.” [State Bar Individual PreHearing Statement, Page 2, Paragraph 4-7 and 8(b)-(c).]…

The State Bar argues, even if Mr. Walz was licensed, his purchasing or having Complainant purchase from private sources other than marijuana dispensaries registered by the Arizona Department of Health Services would be unlawful. As with most of the counts, the support for these allegations comes from the surreptitious recordings of Complainant of conversations that are alleged to have occurred in 2013.

The State Bar declined to offer Exhibit 33 into evidence although it was in its book of proposed exhibits filed with the disciplinary clerk. As the Exhibit is dispositive of multiple allegations, the PDJ orders the exhibit into evidence. Exhibit 33 is a verified statement from the Arizona Department of Health Services, Licensing. It is not listed in the State Bar Individual Pre-Hearing Statement.

The Exhibit verifies Respondent has had five medical marijuana cards issued to him. With the first, he could apparently cultivate marijuana. The card expired on September 21, 2012, and its status is now void. The second card is the only card referenced by the State Bar. It was issued on June 20, 2012, and expired on September 21, 2012. The next card was issued to Mr. Walz had an effective date of September 22, 2012, and expired on September 22, 2013. His fourth card was effective on November 13, 2013, and expired on November 14, 2014. We conclude at all times relative to the recordings, Mr. Walz had a valid Medical Marijuana card. The fact his first card expired on September 21, 2012, is not relevant. Because this raised significant concerns for the Panel, Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 were also reviewed. Exhibit 4 is the State of Arizona authorization for Complainant to cultivate and harvest marijuana. Exhibit 5 is the Arizona Department of Health Services Qualified Patient Request by Mr. Walz to add a caregiver for him. Exhibit 6 is the Arizona Department of Health Services Medical Marijuana Caregiver Attestation apparently filed by Complainant to assist Mr. Walz with his medical marijuana use.

We reviewed the cited transcripts, listened to the recordings and find the references often grossly out of context. By example, to support the State Bar allegation that Respondent was upset because “he could have made other arrangements” when Complainant failed to purchase an ounce of marijuana from Complainant’s acquaintance “David,” the State Bar referenced Attachment B. 

But in that recording, Complainant denies she was asked by Respondent to obtain marijuana for him. [Attachment B, Page 5:2-3.] When Complainant tells Respondent he had said he would call David, Respondent states she keeps making things up. [Id., Page 5:4-8.] This is emphasized by each of them later in the recording when they both individually deny any effort to call or agreement to call David. [Id., Page 6:19-24.] How such denials establish a crime is entirely unclear to us. We found the balance of the cited recordings offered insufficient proof of this allegation. We reviewed the cited transcripts, listened to the recordings and find the State Bar failed to meet its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence a violation of ER 8.4(b)

(Mike Frisch)