“Unprofessional Conduct”

A consent 60-day suspension for “unprofessional conduct” in litigation has been approved by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge.

The Agreement describes in detail the factual background for the ethical violations, which is not repeated herein. Generally speaking, Mr. Williams engaged in unprofessional conduct while representing a family court litigant, resulting in the imposition of sanctions against him.

Of particular relevance to the PDJ is Mr. Williams’ acknowledgement that he acted inappropriately and recognition that “he could have done things differently.” Both the State Bar and Mr. Williams provided additional context for the objections that were interposed by the complainant in this matter.

The additional context from Respodent is attached to the decision, as is the complaint that initiated the matter filed by opposing counsel in the case.

From the complaint (reprinted beginning at page 59 of the bar documents)

Mr. Williams engaged in discovery abuses designed to intimidate my client. Mr. Williams sought information from my client’s phone to include possible nude photographs of her body. My client was sexually assaulted by Mr. Williams’ client, and then she was harassed anonymously online sexually by Mr. Williams’ client. In order to defend his client, Mr. Williams believed it was appropriate to argue that my client was promiscuous, and that she was sending nude pictures to other people. He argued that my client had “made her body an issue” in the case, and therefore he needed to know who had seen my client’s body.

My client felt intimidated and re-victimized by this conduct.

Mr. Williams was very sexually inappropriate with my client (a sexual assault victim) when she was testifying. Mr. Williams continuously insinuated that she was promiscuous, and he even had his client demonstrate various sexually suggestive poses that my client allegedly engaged in. He had his client do this to argue that my client was being “flirtatious.” He did not state it explicitly, but his obvious insinuation was that my client was “asking for it” when his client sexually assaulted her.

Mr. Williams asked my client how she would describe “her ass” in open court. Mr. Williams eventually went so far as to ask my client to demonstrate the missionary position with him on the floor of the courtroom in front of the judge. This ask clearly astounded the whole courtroom.

In addition to attacking my client in this way, Mr. Williams also attacked my client’s mother when she testified. Mr. Williams asked my client’s mother about a completely unrelated sexual assault that took place with the mother as the victim, and Mr. Williams asked if my client was “the product” of a rape. This had absolutely no bearing on the case, but just served to harass and intimidate my client and her mother.

And

During the course of litigation, Mr. Williams sent me numerous emails that were inappropriate. He used abusive language, made veiled threats about filing bar complaints against me, and he asserted himself with bold capital letters to indicate that he was shouting at me. He continuously accused me of making “false” statements to the court.

As a result of his conduct, I filed a motion requesting that my client be awarded her attorney’s fees. In his responsive pleadings, Mr. Williams made numerous ad hominem attacks. He stated that I was “enraged” because he was using “facts and the law,” he described me as “ghetto and unethical,” and he called me “reprehensible and deceitful” as well as “deplorable,” (among other things). All of this was done in his pleadings on the record.

In his lengthy Separate Memorandum (beginning at page 8 of the bar documents) Respondent alleges

The Complainant Brenna Larkin has a history of making misleading and/or false statements which Respondent will demonstrate by citations to the record as each subject of the Complainant’s objections is addressed.

Complainant apparently had an interesting sidelight career in mixed martial arts as a flyweight champion as recounted in Bleacher Report

The underlying litigation is addressed in this opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Second Division.

 Appellant Miguel Plaza appeals the trial court’s order maintaining Marilyn Leon’s order of protection against him and its order denying his request for attorney fees. For the following reasons, we affirm.

(Mike Frisch)