By Jacques Billeaud
Associated Press
PHOENIX (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday there is enough evidence to launch a formal disciplinary case against former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas for allegedly basing a lawsuit and criminal investigations of county officials on his animosity toward them.
A report by an attorney who ran the ethics investigation said Thomas brought criminal cases against two county officials to embarrass them, and charged a sitting judge with bribery and obstruction of justice when Thomas knew the charges were false.
Thomas, who was embroiled in a two-year dispute with county officials, denied the allegations, calling the ethics case a witch hunt.
The disciplinary case arises from a judge's determination in February that Thomas prosecuted a county official for political gain. The ruling prompted the State Bar of Arizona to ask the Nevada Supreme Court to appoint an independent counsel to conduct an ethics investigation into Thomas.
On Monday, retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Jones ruled there was probable cause to let the ethics investigation -- of Thomas and former prosecutors Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander -- become a formal disciplinary case. The case will be decided by a three-member panel.
The ethics allegations stem from a nasty legal dispute that pitted Thomas and his chief ally, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, against judges and other county officials. Thomas and Arpaio contend they were trying to root out corruption, while county officials say the investigations were baseless and an abuse of power.
Thomas and Arpaio's investigations resulted in criminal charges against two county supervisors and one judge. All three cases were dismissed after the judge's February ruling that Thomas prosecuted one of the three officials for political gain and had a conflict of interest in pressing the case.
If Thomas is found to have violated the professional rules of conduct, he could face a wide range of punishments, including an informal reprimand, censure, suspension or disbarment.
John Gleason, a Colorado attorney who ran the investigation, wrote in his report that the allegations against Thomas and Aubuchon warrant disbarment if they are proven.
His report said Thomas brought criminal charges against Maricopa County Supervisors Don Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox to embarrass them, and that some charges against Stapley were barred by the statute of limitations.
The report said Thomas and Aubuchon criminally charged Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe with hindering prosecution, obstruction of justice and bribery when they knew the charges were false.
It also said Thomas, Aubuchon and Alexander had no good-faith basis for filing a lawsuit that accused a group of county officials and judges of conspiring to hinder an investigation into the construction of a court building and an investigation of Stapley. The report said the lawsuit demonstrated a lack of basic legal competence and was an illegal attempt to intrude on the independence of the courts.
Gleason also concluded Aubuchon was dishonest in failing to tell an out-of-county prosecutor who was going to handle two investigations of county officials that a grand jury in Maricopa County had already ended its inquiry into both matters.
Thomas said the discipline case is a political witch hunt on behalf of the state's legal establishment and sends a dangerous message to prosecutors that they could lose their law licenses if they go after powerful people.
"A price was put on my head," said Thomas, who resigned in the spring to launch an unsuccessful campaign for Arizona attorney general.
Aubuchon was fired from the prosecutor's office a few months ago. Alexander left the office earlier this year.
Aubuchon declined to be interviewed but said in a release that Gleason's report was biased and contained false statements that she didn't specify. There were no business phone listing for Alexander.
Gleason declined to say whether he found evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the three attorneys, who face no restrictions in practicing law.
The panel that will decide the disciplinary case against the three former prosecutors is composed of Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil, and a lawyer and member of the public who have yet to be appointed.
Published: Wed, Dec 8, 2010
