A County Attorney Disbarred for Ethical Misconduct

Former Maricopa County, AZ county attorney Andrew Thomas (with one of his assistants) was disbarred on Tuesday on numerous counts related to bringing false charges against other county officials over a period of years, according to an article in yesterday's Arizona Republic. According to Prof. Bennett Gershman of Pace University, "This is a huge victory for good-government people and people who believe that prosecutors should be accountable for misconduct."

But it is a bigger victory for those who believe government attorneys should be held accountable for their misconduct, whether or not they are prosecutors. Government attorneys are rarely held to account for providing poor ethics advice, or poor advice on any topic. They are rarely held to account for wearing multiple hats and failing to withdraw when their roles are in conflict.

Thomas had to go after numerous county officials, including judges, leading to a federal investigation and a grievance complaint, before anything happened to him. It has been three years since I first wrote about his conflicts. His misconduct ended only because he resigned in order to run for Arizona attorney general (he lost in the primary).

Some of the charges against Thomas involved the perjury charges he brought against a county commissioner in 2008 and 2009, relating to alleged omissions on financial disclosure forms (see my blog post). I think it is wrong to bring criminal enforcement into government ethics, and this is a good example of what can happen when you do. Here is what I wrote back in 2009:

It is sad that elected officials seem to fear ethics commissions more than sheriffs and prosecutors, even more than their political rivals. The words "witch hunt" come up regularly when there is a question of creating an independent ethics commission. And yet the words rarely come up when enforcement is placed in the hands of political rivals, who might satisfy their personal and political animosity by dragging officials through arrest, indictment, and a criminal trial, with calls for resignation and the possible ruin of their careers, even for relatively minor ethics or campaign finance violations.

To me, this is a sign that elected officials have no more trust in the public than the public has in them. This is the side of public trust that too often is ignored. Lack of public trust in officials undermines democracy, lowering public participation. Lack of trust in the public suggests that officials don't really want a democracy, that they don't want public participation or true accountability.

It is worth noting that both Thomas and the disciplinary panel refer to what the other did as a political "witch hunt." The fact is that there are no good guys and bad guys here. Maricopa County government was a snake pit. The problem was that the officials who run Arizona and Maricopa County gave a county attorney the power to both represent the county board of supervisors and prosecute its members. These officials gave the county attorney the power to represent the county board of supervisors as it put together plans and contracts for a new county courthouse, as well as to investigate the board's handling of these plans and contracts (but when there was so much commotion about the investigation, it was turned over to another county attorney). The law allowed the county attorney to work closely with the county sheriff (the infamous Joe Arpaio) not only on law enforcement, but also on political vendettas.

SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suits usually come from the outside, but in Maricopa County they came from the county attorney's office in the form of criminal charges, including racketeering charges. This helped to fuel the animosities that were already present, and take partisan rancor to a whole new level.

It appears that Thomas believes he was actually protecting the public from horrible people. He is, after all, author of a book entitled Crime and the Sacking of America: The Roots of Chaos. His ally Joe Arpaio appears to believe this as well. According to another article in the Arizona Republic, in his post-disbarment press conference, Thomas compared himself to Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Thomas More, and swore that he would lead an anti-corruption citizen initiative. Only a true believer would say something so foolish.

As for chaos, here is how the panel portrayed Thomas's conduct:

Respondents Thomas and Aubuchon joined hands to inflict an economic blizzard on [the] public and multiple individuals which is paled only by the intentional infliction of emotional devastation their icy calculated storm left in its wake. That harm is irrefutable, yet still finds Respondents without a shred of remorse.

True believers of any party, as well as ordinary people, need oversight and limitations on what they can do. They must be limited in the hats they can wear, and whom they can wear them with. Even Arizona is no longer the wild west, where the sheriff can also act as prosecutor, judge, and executioner. No county attorney, and especially one with criminal enforcement authority, should have anything to do with government ethics.

And it's not just the county attorney. One of the judges Thomas has proceeded against found that Thomas had a conflict of interest. The matter had to do with the county courthouse. What was a county judge doing getting involved not only with government ethics, but with a matter having to do with his own courthouse?

Maricopa County, like every local government, needs an independent ethics program that does not involve any officials under its jurisdiction.

With respect to the sacking of Maricopa County, there is the issue of whether the county will continue to pay for Thomas's defense if he chooses to appeal the panel's disbarment decision. It has paid his way so far. The suits Thomas has been involved in, as prosecutor and as respondent, have already cost the county well over $10 million in legal fees. Just think how much an independent ethics program might have saved the county (not to mention saving Thomas's license to practice law)!

And guess who decides on Thomas's legal fees:  yes, the county board of supervisors Thomas proceeded against.

Finally, Thomas says he is going to write a book about what happened. This should be a fascinating look at a deeply unhealthy local government ethics environment. For now, read through my blog posts on what happened, and the articles they link to.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

203-859-1959