Blog

Another REALLY good comment that I’m pulling out as its own post, because: A.) this question comes up a LOT, and B.) SO many people misunderstand the rules (even the Bar Guy himself).

Here’s the comment:

Are you “required” to file a notice of candor now that some of those things came out with the investigation? Or does it not matter technically since it would change The fact that she was saying she was no longer pregnant and wanted to dismiss it?

I think that’s something in the court of public opinion is looking for… But I was curious if there’s an actual expectation on the legal side of things.

OK, the answer to this is EASY, and it may also strike some people as hard to accept at first.

The question implicates ER 3.3 which says, in part:

ER 3.3.     Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

*    *   *

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.  If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.  A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

OK, so there are two different duties here. The first says a lawyer can’t “knowingly” make a false statement to a court….and if you do, you have an obligation to correct the false statement (assuming you made an unintentional error and learned about it later). The second thing says a lawyer cannot offer evidence the lawyer KNOWS to be false. And, like the first rule, the second one says if you DO offer evidence that you didn’t know was false at the time, but you later discovered was false, you have to take “reasonable remedial measures” which might include telling the “tribunal” (meaning the judge).

Now, the person asked me whether I have a duty under this rule to file something based on new information obtained by MCAO.  If you JUST read the parts of ER 3.3 shown above, it would seem the answer is YES. Except like so many things in the law, we have subparts and exceptions and comments which aren’t found in the rule itself.

The answer to this question is found in comment 13 under the heading “Duration of Obligation“. Here is what that comment says:

[13] A practical time limit on the obligation to rectify false evidence or false statements of law and fact has to be established.  The conclusion of the proceeding is a reasonably definite point for the termination of the obligation.  A proceeding has concluded within the meaning of this Rule when a final judgment in the proceeding has been affirmed on appeal or the time for review has passed.

This is pretty clear — your duties under ER 3.3 end when the case ends. Pretty simple.

Now, this is where the Bar Guy really frustrates me….because his Complaint includes many things that are, to be honest, not just false but borderline fraudulent (I’m being polite….because it’s not borderline at all).

Let me offer one example — this shows some stuff in the Amended Complaint:

Now, let’s recap the facts — in November 2023, there was a hearing on Clayton’s petition for a harassment injunction (IAH) against Laura. In that petition, Clayton claimed Laura was harassing him by sending him 100 texts/emails (which later magically increased to 500 texts/emails after Woodnick got involved). During that hearing, Laura told the court she had “just seen Dr. Higley”. That statement had literally NOTHING to do with the sole issue before the court — i.e., was Laura harassing Clayton? Harassment has nothing to do with pregnancy, and the IAH court wasn’t looking at question of whether Laura was or was not pregnant.

As we know (because Laura later admitted in her deposition), the statement about Dr. Higley was not accurate. The truth was she made an appointment to see Dr. Higley, but she did not go to that appointment. Again, Laura admitted this in her deposition on March 1, 2024, before I was involved in the case.

Now, remember — Commissioner Gialketsis granted Clayton’s IAH petition. Clayton won that hearing. Of course, I was not at the hearing; I made no false statements to the court at that hearing, and I presented no evidence at that hearing. I would not even meet Laura until almost five months later.

Despite this, the AZ Bar has charged me with violating ER 3.3 by failing to take steps to address the extremely minor (and 100% irrelevant and immaterial) statement Laura made at that hearing regarding Dr. Higley.

Now, you don’t need to be a legal genius to see the HUGE flaws with the bar’s position. Those flaws are:

1. I wasn’t at the fucking hearing. I didn’t represent Laura at that time, so I did not make any false statements to Commissioner Gialketsis. I did not offer any false evidence to the court, because I was not fucking there.
2. Even if I had fucking been there, the IAH case ended in November 2023 — months BEFORE I even met Laura. Per comment 13 to ER 3.3, any duty to correct the record expired long ago. That is true even if I had been at the fucking hearing (which I wasn’t), and even if I had lied to the court (which I didn’t), and even I had offered false evidence (which I did not), any duty I had to correct that stuff expired when Clayton won the case and the time to appeal expired in late 2023…all  of which happened long before I ever heard the name Laura Owens in March 2024.
3. Notwithstanding Points 1 & 2, Laura admitted the truth in her deposition, thus she corrected the record herself weeks before I was hired.

Does that start to make sense now? Jim Lee’s Complaint is so wrong about the facts AND the law, it would literally result in sanctions being imposed on the bar, if this was a normal setting. But it’s not.

And speaking of which, if you haven’t seen this, I would strongly encourage you to read this: Request for Judicial Notice. This pleading explains an important and related issue — Jim Lee also made false statements of law to the bar judge about the “duty to investigate” evidence (another duty he claimed I violated). The Complaint contains maybe a dozen or so examples of times when Jim Lee claimed I “failed to investigate” evidence. The problem with that is: A.) I actually DID diligently investigate everything, and B.) the “duty” that Jim is referring to was only added to the rules in January 2026. Prior to that change, there was NO DUTY to investigate evidence before submitting it to the court.

That’s the point of my Request for Judicial Notice — to inform the bar judge that in 2025, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court said this about the current state of the rules:

Those quotes are literally from the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. According to him, the rules in 2024 (which applied to my conduct in Owens) are exactly the opposite of what Jim Lee claimed they were.

Based on this, I’m pretty comfortable that I’ll win that part of the case easily. I know JFC and Jim WANT the law to be on their side…but it’s just not. Or at least it wasn’t in 2024.

Hope that helps. Sister arrives in an hour, so no more Q&A, but thanks for this one….