Minor Update 11.11.25 — As I was writing this post, I re-read the Complaint filed against me by Mr. Ivchenko. As I was looking at it, I saw this line but I couldn’t recall what he was talking about:
“Defendants subsequently initiated an online attack on their mugshot websites against all of the attorneys that are litigating against them, including myself and [NAME REDACTED].
After thinking about it, I just remembered what Ivchenko meant. At some point during the case, he got involved with a younger lawyer who (as a temporary courtesy) we’ll refer to as [NAME REDACTED].
As it turns out, we learned that despite being a newly licensed AZ attorney, [NAME REDACTED] was also a convicted felon. We discovered that before passing the bar, [NAME REDACTED] was sent to prison based on a conviction for aggravated assault involving a deadly weapon (a gun). He apparently pointed a gun at someone else during a road rage type incident. If memory serves, this earned him around 2.5 years in prison (can’t recall the exact number…it could have been less).
The fact Mr. Ivchenko was working with a lawyer who had a felony conviction for a crime involving violence was concerning, for obvious reasons. Also, if I recall, I think we had some reason to believe [NAME REDACTED] made false statements in a pleading….but we’re going back 4+ years, and I just can’t remember the details without looking at the documents.
Once this information came to light, obviously it raised concerns which were shared with the public. According to Mr. Ivchenko, sharing information about a lawyer’s felony conviction was illegal. An ironic argument under the circumstances, given that he shared all sorts of information about my past, and I’ve never been convicted of a felony.
This is a side issue, and the lawyer involved was young, and was not involved to a degree that I feel his name needs to be included in this story. Still, just to emphasize the point, below is an excerpt from the presentence report of [NAME REDACTED]. If I was the defendant in this situation, I’m sure my critics would think this information was relevant to my fitness to practice law.
Now back to the original post —
Have you ever heard Trump’s zany press secretary Karoline Leavitt (you know, the 28 year old who is married to a guy in his 60s?) talk about how Trump has “most transparent administration ever” (despite the fact Trump is STILL hiding the Epstein Files?)
I’m morally opposed to dishonesty and hypocrisy, so let’s see if I can be more transparent than Trump. As part of that effort, I’m going to be releasing files which I believe show the State Bar of Arizona has engaged in a pattern of improper conduct which includes turning a blind eye to criminal misconduct by Arizona-licensed attorneys (other than me).
I’m not a biblical guy, but the Bible was right about one thing: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
OK, so the AZ bar wants to judge me. No problem. That door swings both ways, fella.
As we are about to embark on a test of my ethical standards, we shall also take a VERY deep dive into what happened the last time I dealt with the AZ bar. I’ve said before – I hate giving free content to YouTubers. This time it’s different. I WANT YouTubers to spread this story far and wide….because it is freakin’ important. If our State Bar is corrupt, or even if it is simply doing a terrible job, the public has a right to know. This is literally the exact reason the First Amendment exists.
Now, having said that, I’ve been looking over the volume of files I need to release. It is MASSIVE. So it’s going to take some time to filter through the stuff. All while I’m actually busy with other projects.
So, for now, since people have been begging to see the complaint Ivchenko filed against me, here ya go – your wish is my command: Ivchenko v. Gingras Bar Complaint. Yes, it was just an email with some attached documents (nothing worth sharing, but I’ll eventually get them posted).
Since Mr. Ivchenko doesn’t write very well, let me summarize the basic gist of his complaint —
- He said I (lumped in with “defendants”, meaning my client) was “harassing” him and his wife. He never explained what that meant, but I guess he felt posting his wife’s mugshot was harassment, even though I had nothing to do with this.
- He referred to a bunch of lawsuits (which HE filed). He then made a conclusory statement: “I believe Mr. Gingras has violated numerous ethical rules by his conduct in these cases.” Again, ZERO explanation of what that meant.
- He then accused me of violating ER 4.2 which says a lawyer is not allowed to communicate directly with an opposing party, if the lawyer knows that party is represented by counsel.
That last issue (trying to communicate with a represented party) is what the bar later charged me with doing. And how exactly did I try to communicate with Mr. Ivchenko’s clients?
Get this – during his INSANE rampage, Mr. Ivchenko filed MULTIPLE lawsuits against my clients claiming they were breaking the law by publishing mugshots. He LOST every single one of those cases (usually by voluntarily dropping them before I could seek sanctions). Eventually, Ivchenko started filing lawsuits on behalf of “John Doe” plaintiffs. In one case (which I called “Case 7”), Ivchenko sued GOOGLE, claiming that Google was liable for merely indexing websites that host mugshots.
While Case 7 was pending, on July 2, 2021, Mr. Ivchenko filed an Amended Complaint which purported to add class-action claims. Here’s that pleading: Ivchenko v. Grant Class Action Complaint. In the Complaint, Ivchenko (suing for an anonymous plaintiff known only as “John Doe”) claimed his intent was to represent a class of “several hundred thousand people” (basically anyone who was arrested in Arizona).
Again, there is SO much more to the story, but the bottom line is that AFTER Ivchenko filed the Amended Complaint, my clients decided they wanted to settle rather than fight (since Ivchenko made it clear he would never stop suing, no matter how many times he lost).
As part of that, my clients asked me to extend a settlement offer to Ivchenko, which I did. But Ivchenko rejected the offer (which made no sense — the offer would have clearly been acceptable to ANYONE in the class Ivchenko claimed to represent). This raised a serious concern that Mr. Ivchenko was not, in fact, representing anyone (we believed that he was simply lying about having any clients at all). In addition, Mr. Ivchenko never moved to certify the class. That meant any potential class members were not actually Ivchenko’s clients (this is HIGHLY technical, but in a class action lawsuit, class members are NOT represented by plaintiff’s counsel unless and until the class is certified).
So, because my clients wanted to settle, and because we had reason to believe that Ivchenko did not actually have any clients (he was simply lying about this), we hatched a plan — the client would post his settlement offer on the front page of his website. That way, if a person was a class member and they wanted to settle, they could read the terms of the settlement offer and then contact my client directly to accept the offer. No need to go through Ivchenko.
NOTE – ER 4.2 says LAWYERS cannot communicate directly with an opposing represented party. By definition, ER 4.2 does NOT say anything about clients speaking directly with each other, even when both sides have lawyers. So, in short, parties involved in litigation are ALWAYS allowed to communicate directly with each other. As part of that process, lawyers are allowed to help their clients decide what to say to the other side (there is an ABA Formal Opinion directly on this issue).
So, my client posted the settlement offer (which I drafted) on his website. The offer explained the settlement terms, and it said if anyone wanted to accept the offer, they could contact my client directly. I would not be involved in any communication with any represented person; only my client would be. Exactly within the letter of the rule.
Mr. Ivchenko took the position that by helping my client attempt to make a settlement offer to an anonymous group of plaintiffs, this constituted an indirect attempt (by me) to violate ER 4.2. To my absolute astonishment, the AZ bar agreed (at least initially).
Again, LONG, LONG, LONG story…but there were TONS of legal problems with the AZ’s position. I will get to that later.
But here’s the fun part – after I challenged the AZ’s bar’s position, they moved to dismiss the charges against me. That’s slightly different than saying the bar judge ruled in my favor, but trust me — that still counts as a win in my book. They tried to punish me. They failed. Case dismissed.
But now for the cherry on top — in early 2025, general counsel for the State Bar of Arizona filed a petition (R-25-0033) with the Arizona Supreme Court. You can read it here: https://rulesforum.azcourts.gov/Rules-Forum/aft/1729
In the petition, the State Bar asked the Supreme Court to add a new comment to ER 4.2 (the rule Ivchenko accused me of violating). That comment is short, and to the point: “a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make.” DUH. Thanks for the vindication.
Advising a client regarding a communication the client is legally entitled to make is EXACTLY what I did in this instance. I advised my client regarding a settlement offer he wanted to make to the anonymous class of people suing him. My client was legally entitled to make that offer, and he was under no restriction against trying to communicate with the class members suing him. Again, because members of a not-yet-certified class aren’t represented by plaintiff’s counsel, I could have communicated directly with these people if I wanted. But that’s irrelevant since that isn’t what happened.
NOTE – the AZ Supreme Court later granted the AZ bar’s petition, so the current version of ER 4.2 now contains that clarifying comment. This comment validates my position – Mr. Ivchenko’s complaint against me was utterly frivolous.
Now, please keep in mind — none of this has anything to do with the DETAILED evidence showing criminal conduct by Mr. Ivchenko which the State Bar of Arizona knew about and chose to ignore. That is the story I will be making a video about ASAP….but since I want to get every detail right, it’s going to take a while.
Until then, let me close with this — after Mr. Ivchenko filed several fraudulent lawsuits, my clients eventually had enough. To stop this insanity (which the Arizona Bar failed to do), we sued Mr. Ivchenko in federal court. The Complaint was filed BEFORE Mr. Ivchenko went even more batshit, so it only contains PART of the story, but it gives at least some helpful background.
That Complaint and docket is available on CourtListener here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/33974865/grant-v-ivchenko/
If you want the full Complaint with exhibits, that’s available here: https://gingraslaw.com/Grant-v-Ivchenko-Complaint.pdf
