Keeping The Pigs At Bay

A reprimand and probation for two years was consented to and approved by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge

Generally speaking, the ethical issues arose in the context of Respondent Cook engaging in several instances of conduct that violated the Oath of Admission and/or the Creed of Professionalism along with various Ethics Rules while representing clients in both civil and family court proceedings. In the civil matter, Respondent engaged in unprofessional communications. In the family court matter, Respondent sent text messages to the opposing party which were perceived as threatening and/or harassing  by the opposing party. As well, Respondent had sexual relations with the client and continued to represent the client after the relationship began. Respondent failed to withdraw from the representation when the sexual relationship began. Thereafter, Respondent withdrew from representation but continued to assist and/or represent the client.

Objection of the former client

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge (“PDJ”) turns to the objection reflected in the letter dated May 15, 2025, filed with the Notice of Objection- Count Two on May 30, 2025 (the “Objection”). The Objection from [former client] Ms. Sarah Savage through Counsel Kristin Roebuck Bethell raises concerns that Respondent Cook’s “conduct warrants consequences more severe than a reprimand and probation” and that “his prior disciplinary history, together with his conduct during …. demonstrates a pattern of ongoing violation …. requiring more severe consequences”. The PDJ also had concerns regarding the Respondent’s past disciplinary matters. However, there is only one that is relevant to the violations addressed in the Agreement which involves language choice by the Respondent. The PDJ finds the specified terms of probation appropriately address the Respondent’s issues such to protect the public from further harm. Therefore, the PDJ accepts the Agreement and its terms of a reprimand with two (2) years of probation as appropriate for the Respondent’s misconduct in this matter given the age of the misconduct, and the evidence in the sealed mitigation material.

After reviewing the matters presented, the PDJ concludes that the Agreement adequately achieves the recognized purposes of the lawyer discipline process.

In the Savage matter

On or about April 26, 2016, while Respondent was representing Sarah in her post-decree matter, he and Sarah began a sexual relationship.

Soon thereafter, Sarah learned she was pregnant and informed Respondent she would continue the pregnancy. Respondent asked that they get married before their child was born.

On August 8, 2016, the court began a three-day evidentiary hearing and issued a ruling on various issues.

On August 11, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw with Client Consent which stated that Sarah “seeks to avoid incurring future legal fees. (Sarah) is free to hire (Respondent) again if she wishes.”

The court granted the motion that day.

A child is born

On January 14, 2017, Respondent and Sarah were married in California.

On January 26, 2017, Sarah gave birth to her and Respondent’s daughter, Harry Elizabeth Savage.

On May 2, 2017, Respondent contemporaneously filed a Notice of Limited Scope Appearance and Pretrial Statement on behalf of Sarah in anticipation of the May 9th continued evidentiary hearing.

On May 9, 2017, the court held the continuation of the evidentiary hearing and took the matter under advisement.

Respondent and opposing counsel thereafter submitted filings alleging wrongdoing by the other party/attorney.

On June 22, 2017, the court issued rulings in the underlying matter but did not make any finding of wrongdoing by the parties or their respective attorneys. Respondent’s representation of Sarah in the post-decree matter ended on or about that time.

Ms. Savage later sued Respondent

On July 21, 2022, Sarah initiated the Maricopa County Superior Court case of Sarah Savage v. Stephen A. Cook, FC2022-004597 through counsel.

In August 2022, Respondent sent Sarah text messages which Sarah considered threatening and harassing. 

In January 2024, Sarah, through counsel, submitted a charge to the State Sarah alleged in her charge that on January 15, 2017, after she married Respondent, he drafted and presented to her for signature a prenuptial agreement. She provided the State Bar with a document dated January 15, 2017 that was purportedly signed by Sarah and Respondent at that time.

Respondent, through prior discipline counsel, denied that he and Sarah entered into a prenuptial agreement in January 2017.

Respondent, through current discipline counsel, states that he prepared a version of the document in June 2021, which he provided to Sarah at that time.

Respondent states that he prepared the document after judgments were entered against him in January 2021 in a probate case, In re Conservatorship of Chalmers, and a companion tort case for attorney’s fees and costs. He was concerned that the judgment creditors might seek to levy Sarah’s assets to collect the judgment while he pursued an appeal.

As Respondent stated in a text message that he sent to Sarah in 2021, “I did the prenup to keep the pigs from levying on your assets.”

Respondent’s judgment creditors did not seek to levy on Sarah’s assets and Respondent later satisfied the judgment in full.

(Mike Frisch)