ABOUT THE AZ PROBABLE CAUSE COMMITTEE’S RULING ON KAREN CLARKE’S (KC) COMPLAINT, RELATING TO JM’S INVOLVEMENT WITH BLOGGERS, RELAYING CONFIDENTIAL INFO TO THEM, INVITING THEM TO MCAO OFFICES AFTER HOURS, IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATING WITH A DISMISSED JUROR (DURING PP2, JUROR #3); “CONSPIRING” WITH JENNIFER WOODS (JW) TO OUT JUROR 17, AND, THE NEW CHARGE THAT JM WAS (ESSENTIALLY) LESS THAN TRUTHFUL OR HAD ACTUALLY OUTRIGHT LIED TO THE BAR IN HIS REPLIES TO KC’S ORIGINAL BAR COMPLAINT ON THESE MATTERS.
***First, general context about the process, plugging in a timeline specific to KC’s original complaint. **** (Looooong.
)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW AZ BAR COMPLAINTS ARE HANDLED
1. Bar receives complaint. Prescreens. Tosses it out at this stage if it is clearly bogus (ALL of ’s fans complaints, for example, were rejected at this phase).
2. Screening. Complaint is prescreened, has enough merit to go to next step: screening.
KC’s original complaint made it to this stage.
The screening process: the complainant () is notified, and the lawyer (JM’s) is given written notice of the investigation and the nature of the allegations (aka a “screening letter”) The lawyer is asked for a written response.
Bar counsel forwards a copy of (JM’s) response to KC/, an investigator is assigned. “The investigator and assigned bar counsel will conduct interviews, obtain records or other necessary information and undertake appropriate research. “
3.
Timeline of KC’s original complaint
February 13, 2017. KC ‘s only recorded interview with Tammy Rose, though she spent “many hours (interviewing Rose) as part of preparing the bar charge.”
Feb 24, 2017. KC files bar complaint against JM (34 pages long, with 35 pages of exhibits).
April 24, 2017. JM replies to the Bar’s initial screening letter
(his 1st of only 2 direct communications with the Bar. He was never deposed or interviewed by Bar counsel. This matters for when & what he could have allegedly been untruthful about).
April 27, 2017. Bar asked KC for additional information.
May 16, 2017. KC interviews Sharee Ruiz, Woods’ ex business partner (the “Trial Divas”).
May 17, 2017. KC provides requested information, and includes the texts exchanged between Rose and Woods that had been extracted from Rose’s phone (after she voluntarily provided her phone to the attorney for Juror #17).
May 23, 2017. (via phone) KC provided Bar Counsel with a list of 25 potential witnesses. Jennifer Wilmott is on that list.
July 17, 2017. Bar Counsel sends JM a letter telling him that he must respond to ALL of the questions asked on the initial screening letter.
August 11, 2017. JM replies to this 2nd Bar letter.
January 2, 2018. JM’s counsel and Bar Counsel exchanged emails on the charges.
January 9, 2018. KC’s charges against JM are dismissed, without ever having been forwarded to the Probable Cause Committee.
--------------------------------------------
4.
KC’s appeal of the dismissal
February 9, 2018. KC appeals the dismissal of the charges. Central to this context of AZ’s bar complaint process, she argued that Bar Counsel had abused its discretion by not advancing the complaint to the Bar’s Probable Cause Committee. KC asserted that even though the Bar had barely conducted the required investigation (only 4 of her 25 witnesses were interviewed, ad JM was not), she had provided Counsel with more than sufficient information to find probable cause.
It is the Probable Cause’s Committee, she argued, not Bar Counsel, that has the discretion to review well supported allegations, and to determine whether to advise discipline of an atty, or dismissal of the charges.
Here is AZ’s stated process for Probable Cause Review
“Once bar counsel have sufficient information to recommend how a charge should be resolved, they prepare an investigative report of the file. The report and recommendation are submitted to the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee ("Committee"), who decides whether there is enough evidence to continue on to formal proceedings or whether another course of action is appropriate.
-----------------------------
5. KC argued in her appeal for a reversal of the dismissal, that the charges be advanced for a Probable Cause Review, and that the very least, that the charges be more fully investigated.
March 9, 2018. The PCC issues order vacating the dismissal and directing the State Bar “to conduct further investigation in this matter and to report the outcome of that investigation (to the PCC) for consideration and disposition.”
November 5, 2018. The PCC finds probable cause to file a complaint against JM:
STATE BAR STATEMENT
“
The state Bar intends to file a complaint alleging that Mr. Martinez violated (rules of professional conduct)..by knowingly making false statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter (and) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
------------------------------------------
NEXT: WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE PROCESS, AND AFTER THAT, A BREAKDOWN OF THE ALLEGED CHARGE THAT JM (LIED) AT SOME POINT DURING THE REVIEW/INVESTIGATION OF KC’S ORIGINAL BAR COMPLAINT.
