Indian Switcher

A sanction imposed by the Hopi Tribal Court led to a consent reprimand by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge

The Agreement sets forth the factual background for the ethical violations, which is not repeated herein. Generally speaking, while employed as Chief Prosecutor for the Hopi Tribe, Ms. Classen prosecuted a number of cases involving defendants she had represented in the past as defense counsel. By order dated March 5, 2024, the Hopi Tribal Court issued a Reprimand with terms based on Ms. Classen’s violations of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 3.3, 5.3, and 8.4(a).

Facts

Within a month of starting as Chief Prosecutor, attorneys employed by DNA as criminal defense counsel realized that Respondent was prosecuting some of her former clients from her tenure at DNA and the Hopi Public Defender’s Office. On December 27, 2023, a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Due to Chief Prosecutor’s Undisclosed Conflict of Interest was filed in Hopi Tribe v. Jordan Saufkie, 2023-CR-0324.

Five similar Motions were filed in separate cases, requesting dismissal due to Chief Prosecutor’s non-disclosure of conflicts, rather than on the merits.

After the Court issued orders recusing Respondent on those cases and emphasizing the continuing duty of the Prosecutor to prosecute cases where no actual conflict exists, the Chief Prosecutor began a practice of filing a “Notice of Conflict” on every case involving a defendant who was prosecuted during her tenure as Public Defender, regardless of whether she had represented the Defendant previously and without performing any type of legal analysis.

Number of cases at issue

As of March 1, 2024, there were at least 48 cases involving offenses of a serious nature where Respondent had “noticed” the Court of a conflict of interest out of the total number of 79 cases filed in calendar year 2024. It is unclear how many of those cases involved an actual conflict.

Respondent resigned from the position. (Mike Frisch)