Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LISA M. AUBUCHON
ATTORNEY NO. 13141
No. SB-12-0035-AP
Filed September 17, 2013
DISBARMENT ORDERED
COUNSEL:
prosecutor, abused the public trust, and misused the justice system. Based
on the record and the aggravating and mitigating factors, we order
disbarment.
BACKGROUND
former Rule ____ and the current version as Rule ____. Unless
otherwise indicated, we cite to the current version of the Rules.
2 The complaint also alleged thirty-three charges against Thomas and
six charges against Alexander, which resulted in orders by the hearing
panel disbarring Thomas and suspending Alexander. Although Thomas
did not appeal, Alexander did, and we ordered her suspension. In re
Alexander, 232 Ariz. 1, 15 66, 300 P.3d 536, 551 (2013).
2
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
DISCUSSION
I. Non-conforming Briefs
A. Pre-complaint Investigation
3
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
bar counsel, (3) Chief Justice Berch improperly assigned that attorney to
investigate attorneys rather than allegations in a bar complaint, (4) bar
counsel refused to produce exculpatory evidence found during the
investigation, and (5) bar counsel asked Aubuchon to respond to
allegations rather than evidentiary facts in a letter sent during his
investigation. Because disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in
nature[,] . . . the requirements of procedural due process must be met. In
re Brady, 186 Ariz. 370, 373, 923 P.2d 836, 839 (1996). Aubuchon was
afforded due process if she was given fair notice of the charges and a
meaningful opportunity to defend against them. In re Peasley, 208 Ariz.
27, 34 26, 90 P.3d 764, 771 (2004); Webb v. State ex rel. Ariz. Bd. of Med.
Examrs, 202 Ariz. 555, 558 9, 48 P.3d 505, 508 (App. 2002).
4
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
5
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
Judge ONeil told counsel for both sides they were moving too slowly; he
did not single out Aubuchon. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555 ([J]udicial
remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or
even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not
support a bias or partiality challenge.). And although the panels
subsequent opinion sharply criticizes Aubuchon, it does not reflect a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible. Id.; see also id. at 55556 ([E]xpressions of impatience,
dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of
what imperfect men and women, even . . . judges, sometimes display do
not establish bias or partiality); Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 575 (4th
Cir. 2011) (But to argue that judges must desist from forming strong
views about a case is to blink [from] the reality that judicial decisions
inescapably require judgment. Dissatisfaction with a judges views on the
merits of a case may present ample grounds for appeal, but it rarelyif
everpresents a basis for recusal.).
8
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
1. Statute of Limitations
9
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
11
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
permissible because she did not seek to question the judges about a
judicial ruling; she only sought to question them about an administrative
assignment.
12
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
13
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
D. Remaining Violations
not reflect that Arpaio testified about probable cause, and Aubuchon does
not cite any evidence of his opinion on the matter. And Coonings
testimony does not support Aubuchon as he testified that [a]fter reading
the probable cause statement it wasnt clear to me what the crimes were.
16
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 29192 (1999) (noting that cases recognizing a liberty
interest to engage in an occupation deal with a complete prohibition of
the right to engage in a calling and not merely a brief interruption).
18
IN RE LISA M. AUBUCHON
Opinion of the Court
* Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch recused herself from this case.
Pursuant to Article 6, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, the Honorable
Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, was
designated to sit in this matter.
19