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 <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/04/10/20120…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's Arizona <i>Republic</i></a>. 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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>

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).<br>
<br>
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 <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/maricopa-county-2-perjury-charges-eth…; target="”_blank”">my
blog post</a>). 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:<ul>

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.<br>
<br>
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.</ul>

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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
It appears that Thomas believes he was actually protecting the
public from horrible people. He is, after all, author of a book
entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Crime-Sacking-America-Roots-Chaos/dp/0028811070/&…; target="”_blank”"><i>Crime
and the Sacking of America: The Roots of Chaos</i>.</a> His ally Joe
Arpaio appears to believe this as well. According to <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/04/11/20120411thom… article in the Arizona <i>Republic</i></a>, 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.<br>
<br>
As for chaos, here is how the panel portrayed Thomas's conduct:<ul>

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.</ul>

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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Maricopa County, like every local government, needs an independent
ethics program that does not involve any officials under its
jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
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)!<br>
<br>
And guess who decides on Thomas's legal fees:  yes, the county
board of supervisors Thomas proceeded against.<br>
<br>
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 <a href="www.cityethics.org/search/node/maricopa&quot; county>my blog posts</a> on what happened, and the articles they link to.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959