After my return-from-the-dead video yesterday, I realized I forgot to share what appears to be a new bar complaint filed against me by Andrew Ivchenko. I didn’t want to write another post, but this is important stuff, so here’s what I got from Jim Lee last week:
As I mentioned in yesterday’s video, this pleading contains no information about Mr. Ivchenko’s new complaint, but the attached letter sheds some light on things. Reading between the lines, it looks like Mr. Ivchenko is asking Mr. Lee to somehow help him hide certain information from the public, including arrest records and bodycam footage from his wife’s arrest which I have posted here:
- Is The State Bar of Arizona Broken/Corrupt? (Yes, it is…here’s proof)
- The Ivchenko Files – Part 1 (of a billion)
- The Ivchenko Files – Document Index
It’s helpful that the letter mentions a specific ethical rule — ER 4.4(a). That rule says:
ER 4.4. Respect for Rights of Others
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden any other person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
I assume Mr. Ivchenko feels I violated this rule by posting information about his conduct and his wife’s arrest because that stuff embarrassed them (and rightly so).
There are, of course, major problems with that argument:
1.) Notice the first words of the rule: “In representing a client…”
What client am I representing with respect to my criticism of Mr. Ivchenko? None. I am not representing any client, nor am I engaged in the practice of law. I’m just a guy with a keyboard spreading truthful information which proves: A.) an Arizona attorney (Mr. Ivchenko) committed fraud and other crimes while acting as a lawyer, and B.) I reported this misconduct to the State Bar of Arizona, but rather than fulfilling its stated purpose of protecting the public, the bar did nothing….thus allowing Mr. Ivchenko to cause severe harm to the courts, the public, and my former clients.
Every word I have posted about Mr. Ivchenko is either factually true, or it represents my constitutionally protected opinion based on fully disclosed facts. The First Amendment absolutely protects my right to use this information to criticize the State Bar of Arizona for, in effect, lying to the public and betraying the very people it falsely claims to be protecting. That’s literally the core purpose of what the First Amendment is for – calling out government corruption and incompetence.
2.) As applied to the facts of Andrew’s complaint (at least as I understand them), ER 4.4(a) is blatantly unconstitutional. The bar CANNOT punish a lawyer for speech just because it may “embarrass” someone: “Speech does not lose its protected character … simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action.” NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 3424, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982).
It’s sad that Jim Lee has such deep contempt and hatred for the First Amendment and for the United States Supreme Court. I will respectfully (but pointlessly) remind Jim that when he became a lawyer, he swore the following Oath: “To support the constitution and the laws of the United States and the State of Arizona.” Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 41(b)(2).
“The constitution” includes the fucking First Amendment, and every other part of the Bill of Rights.
Jim has violated his oath so many times. It’s just tragic that a person like this is trusted with enforcing the same ethical rules which he disregards so freely and brazenly. No wonder the AZ Bar is so deeply broken with people like this running the show. Foxes shouldn’t oversee the henhouse.
3.) Although ER 4.4(a) does not apply to my situation (since I am not representing anyone), Mr. Ivchenko has violated that rule multiple times.
Back in August 2021, Mr. Ivchenko violated ER 4.4(a) by filing a lawsuit against me, and attaching every possible criminal record from my past that he could find as exhibits to the Complaint. In that lawsuit (which he later dropped), Mr. Ivchenko falsely accused me of “abuse of process” based on the fact I put too much effort into defending a client that Mr. Ivchenko was upset with. Although Mr. Ivchenko has every right to publish truthful criticism of me based on public records (assuming he does not use them to place me in a false light, or otherwise create defamatory implications), if ER 4.4(a) has any valid application, it was certainly violated by Mr. Ivchenko’s decision to attach irrelevant criminal records (including from matters that were dismissed without any finding of guilt) to a public lawsuit which had nothing to do with those records.
Mr. Ivchenko also committed a separate violation of ER 4.4(a) (and multiple other ethical rules) in a separate way — during his attack on my former clients, Mr. Ivchenko filed a separate groundless “John Doe” lawsuit, and he then used that case to illegally obtain a subpoena (in direct violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure), which he then used to secretly (and illegal) obtain information about my client’s ownership of a website containing criticism of Mrs. Ivchenko. This conduct constituted a second violation of ER 4.4 because Mr. Ivchenko: “used methods of obtaining evidence that violate[d] the legal rights of such a person.”
But again, the Arizona Bar is so hopelessly dishonest and unethical, I didn’t even bother reporting Mr. Ivchenko’s other misconduct in that case….although perhaps I need to revisit that decision. Jim Lee DID say he was retiring soon. Hopefully he will be replaced by a new person who cares about enforcing the rules in a way that helps, rather than hurts, the public.
Until then, I’ll just sit and wait for a new letter from Jim demanding that I respond to yet another lawless request for information.