Like The Movies

A public reprimand by consent has been approved by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge

Generally speaking, the ethical issues arose when Respondent Brown practiced unprofessional conduct at multiple points in the course of his representation of defendants in a defamation action involving a residential community. The unprofessional conduct included such things as: referring to the plaintiffs as “MEAN GIRLS” in the introduction of a change of venue pleading; alleging in the pleadings that members of the community, not involved in the litigation, had committed crimes of a sexual nature including child molestation; filed various pleadings without a good faith basis in fact or law; and derisive in pleadings and communications with opposing counsel regarding their clients and counsel.

Conditions

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED placing Respondent on probation for a period of (2) years. The terms of probation shall include:

1. For any intellectual property litigation in Arizona District Court for which Respondent serves as counsel: a. Respondent will have a practice monitor review any court filings for the types of issues that form the basis of this disciplinary matter and advise respondent on how to remain in compliance with his ethical and professionalism obligations. b. The practice monitor the State Bar has approved is Donald Wilson Jr. • Any changes in practice monitors must be approved by the State Bar.
2.  For any litigation matter other than intellectual property litigation, Respondent will not appear as counsel of record without experience co-counsel appearing as counsel of record and actively participating in the matter. a. The Arizona Court of Appeals case, Iqtunheimr LLC v. Val Vista Lakes Community Ass’n, Case No. 1 CA-CV 25-0095, is exempted from this requirement while it remains on appeal. • If the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, this requirement will apply.

Some of the pleadings

In his motion to change venue, Respondent’s introduction of the parties included the following: To best understand the parties involved, one should watch the blockbuster movie, MEAN GIRLS, from 2004. While many times art imitates life, this seems to be the situation where life imitates art. Unfortunately, like in the MEAN GIRLS movie, rumors and mean things have percolated through the [struck through] high school, community. Like in the movie, the Court will find that the MEAN GIRLS and their desire to hold onto power, in the [struck through] high school community, are the unsavory reasons for the rumors….

And

In the Response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Application for Order to Show Cause, Respondent:

a. Included a picture of a non-party that Respondent referred to as “[a]nother [Val Vista Lakes] Mormon Bishop(ric) found guilty of sexual improprieties”; and

b. Asked that “the Court consider perjury charges against Marcianne Johnson … [o]r at least understand why the Val Vista Lakes community gave her the nickname of Pinocchio.”

Respondent attached to the Response an affidavit he executed on February 13, 2023. Respondent’s February 13, 2023 affidavit contained several irrelevant personal attacks, including:

a.  Stating that Johnson “had put on a lot of weight”;

b, Repeatedly referring to Johnson as “large”;

c. Describing an outfit Johnson wore as “what is best described as Thanksgiving meal clothes”;

d. Referring to Johnson’s husband’s role in the Mormon Church; and

e. Stating that Johnson’s husband’s status with the State Bar was retired, which Respondent stated he assumed was because “word got around” about Respondent having reported Johnson’s husband to the State Bar.

Further

On March 1, 2024, following a deposition of Johnson in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CV2023-091596, Respondent emailed her attorney a “personal note,” which included the statement: “Gilbert has its goons that bully people, and the recent Senate Hearing highlighted the suicide(s) in the Gilbert community from anonymous bullying. Some day I pray you stop being part of the problem. Sincerely. Next time you hear about anonymous bullying online, you can pat yourself on the back.”

Response to sanctions motion

In the Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, Respondent referenced unsubstantiated personal attacks on the Val Vista HOA President, Retired Judge Melvin McDonald, including stating:

a. “Defendants’ [sic] President Melvin McDonald has a horrific history of attempting to destroy his legal opponents, through any means necessary,” citing Exhibit 13; and

b. “[Plaintiff] has no[] history of intimidation or unsavory legal practices, Defendants cannot say the same thing,” citing Exhibit 14.

The Exhibit 13 referenced in Respondent’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is a 1997 New Times article that appears to accuse Judge McDonald of some sort of wrongdoing, but much of the printed article is blocked by ads.

The Exhibit 14 referenced in Respondent’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is a Court of Appeals decision from 1999 (197 Ariz. 155) in which the court reversed, in part, the dismissal of a complaint against Judge McDonald and others, finding that statements Judge McDonald allegedly made were not absolutely privileged.

Ultimately

On October 23, 2024, the court granted the defendants’ application for fees and costs and the defendants’ motion for sanctions, stating the lawsuit was frivolous, referring the matter to the State Bar and imposing a $5,000 sanction against Respondent personally.

(Mike Frisch)