Martinez fights State Bar over conduct claims
A well-known Maricopa County prosecutor is continuing his fight with the State Bar of Arizona, nearly two weeks after being placed on paid administrative leave.
In March, the bar filed a formal misconduct complaint against Martinez, who became a national household name during the Jodi Arias murder trial. The complaint claimed Martinez harassed several women who worked at the Maricopa County Attorney’s
Office and Maricopa County Superior Court. It also accused Martinez of having a relationship with a blogger.
Presiding Disciplinary Judge William J. O’Neil later dismissed the allegations from inside the County Attorney’s Office, saying the appropriate venue for those allegations was that office. The State Bar then accused the judge of abusing his discretion and acting arbitrarily and capriciously.
On Monday, Martinez filed a response to the State Bar’s accusation. He has also asked O’Neil to also dismiss the claims from an employee at Maricopa County Superior Court.
Martinez’s disciplinary hearing is set for April 20.
Asking to dismiss ethics charge
In its complaint, the State Bar accused Martinez of making comments toward a court reporter who worked at the Maricopa County Superior Court. The woman claimed she was warned by a supervisor that “certain individuals were flirtatious” and that she should avoid them.
Martinez would make comments on her skirts, shoes and physical appearance while she worked on the Arias case, according to the complaint.
The woman claimed Martinez told her “I like the person that’s in the skirt,” “I’d really like to see what’s inside” and “I really miss those skirts,” according to the complaint.
The complaint stated the woman felt uncomfortable and switched work times with a coworker until her supervisor became aware of the schedule changes.
Martinez’s lawyer argued the State Bar did not address the specific portions of The Oath of Admission or Creed of Professionalism that were violated.
“Instead, we are left to guess, but all will be revealed at trial, when Mr. Martinez will finally learn what provision he has violated and must defend against,” Martinez’s lawyer Donald Wilson Jr. stated in the motion.
However, the State Bar argued in a response that it did address what rules were violated.
The State Bar cited the Oath: “I will treat the courts of justice and judicial officers with due respect; ... I will support the fair administration of justice, professionalism among lawyers, and legal representation for those unable to afford counsel.”
“While Respondent continues to deny any misconduct, it is disingenuous to now suggest that he does not know which provisions of the Oath and Creed are applicable to his sexually inappropriate actions,” the State Bar stated in its response.
Wilson argued the State Bar never indicated what sections of the Oath or Creed Martinez violated until it gave a response to the motion to dismiss, instead of stating it in the formal complaint.
“... The Bar is finally able to identify what it believes he did wrong, ergo, no harm, no foul,” Wilson stated in court records. “This approach is completely contrary to well-settled case law, and a most basic rules of American jurisprudence-due process.”
Also, Martinez’s lawyer stated the disciplinary hearing is not the appropriate venue for the issue.
He argued the woman could have reported the issue to the human resources department, the County Attorney’s Office, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the trial judge, or filed a civil lawsuit against Martinez.
The woman’s lawyer, Tom Ryan, told The Arizona Republic that it would be a disgrace if there wasn’t an evidentiary hearing on the allegations.
“If we can learn anything from the Harvey Weinstein trial, it is immensely difficult for any woman to report sexual harassment,” Ryan said.
He said victims get vilified and scorned when they report.
Response to State Bar petition
O’Neil granted a preliminary summary judgment addressing allegations against Martinez in August about harassment inside the County Attorney’s Office. The judge later issued a formal ruling last month. Martinez has denied the allegations.
O’Neil stated in his ruling that Martinez didn’t dispute the allegations concerning County Attorney’s Office employees, but that they shouldn’t be addressed in the hearing because they “did not occur during the practice of the law” and needed to be addressed by
Martinez’s employer.
“When someone creates a hostile working environment and makes a coworker feel uncomfortable, a complaint should be reported,” O’Neil stated in the ruling. “Mr. Martinez was reported and was properly reprimanded for the MCAO allegations.”
Former Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery wrote in a letter in April that Martinez received a written reprimand in his file and mandatory training.
However, the State Bar claimed in its petition that O’Neil’s findings were “erroneous.”
The State Bar pointed out that the County Attorney’s Office isn’t able to regulate the legal profession or impose sanctions against a lawyer’s license. Those are the responsibilities of the State Bar.
“In the age of #MeToo, sexual harassment in the workplace is no longer accepted,” the State Bar stated in its petition. “Absent this Court’s declaration that sexual harassment in the workplace by lawyers is unethical and unprofessional, neither lawyers nor the public can have any confidence that the practice of law will be free from such abhorrent behavior.”
Martinez’s attorney stated the judge relied on rules concerning unprofessional conduct and the practice of the law when making his decision.
“The State Bar admits there is no specific rule regulating the interactions between an attorney and law clerks or prohibiting sexual harassment,” Wilson stated.
According to the response, Martinez was punished by the County Attorney’s Office for making co-workers feel uncomfortable during lunch outings, and actions and comments “perceived to be inappropriate” when working with law clerks.
Wilson argued the State Bar is wanting the Arizona Supreme Court to make a new rule and apply it to his client, which would weaken Martinez’s rights to due process and create a “dangerous precedent.” This could allow disciplinary proceedings for any conduct the bar sees unprofessional even if it doesn’t deal with the practice of law, according to Wilson.
In the response, Martinez’s lawyer does say sexual harassment is “socially undesirable and rightly prohibited in most areas of modern society.”