Perils Of Inaction When Your Opponent Drops The Ball

An attorney who represented Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County in defending a lawsuit alleging mistreatment while incarcerated has accepted an admonishment by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge.

Ms. Flaggman conditionally admits she violated Rule 42, ERs 3.3 (candor before tribunal) and 8.4(d) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The agreed upon sanctions include an admonition and one (1) year of probation to include 5.75 hours of continuing legal education (CLE), and costs totaling 1,200.00 within thirty (30) days from this order.

The parties agree to an admonition and one (1) year of probation (CLE). Ms. Flaggman shall also pay the State Bar’s costs and expenses totaling $1,2000.00. The objective of discipline is met by the admonition

Respondent had moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to timely respond to discovery. On the day that the motion was filed, plaintiff contacted her by email and confirmed that the responses had been timely filed, a fact that she acknowledged.

The plaintiff filed no response and the respondent did not withdraw the motion.

As you might suspect, motion granted.

Plaintiff initially took no action.

The respondent consulted with her colleagues and reached a conclusion that the burden was on plaintiff to set aside the judgment as the “ball was in his court.”

Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. The respondent did not oppose but the case was rotated to a new judge who entered judgment for the defendants.

Just before the six-month period ran, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration. The respondent did not oppose and the case was reinstated. 

The judge in the underlying case referred plaintiff’s counsel – but not respondent – to the State Bar for investigation. (Mike Frisch)