Ever heard the saying: if you don’t have haters, you’re doing something wrong?

Well, I guess I’m doing a lot right, as evidenced by the fact I keep getting more bar complaints, generally from total strangers. Don’t ask me the total number – I have lost count.

I’d like to create a full Wiki page covering each one, showing the allegations and how they were resolved. This would be interesting and informative. BUT, when weighing the pros and cons, I just can’t justify giving that much free content to YouTube parasites.

For now, let’s just talk about one recent complaint. This was from a person who I do not know named Sarah Howery.

Actually, I DO know Sarah….barely. All I know is she has a very small YouTube channel. A few weeks ago, Sarah posted a video covering the now-denied, and 100% pure BS, Motion to Disqualify filed by Omar Serrato in the Mike Marraccini SF DVRO case.

Because she’s an unfriendly person, without asking for permission, Sarah used a photo of me (a selfie I created) as the thumbnail for her video. I guess in her rush to spread hateful content against a complete stranger, Sarah failed to realize using someone else’s copyrighted work for private financial gain is illegal. In fact, it can be a federal crime. See 17 U.S.C. § 506.

When I saw Sarah using my copyrighted work without permission, I decided to say something — to YouTube. Unlike Sarah, YouTube understands and cares about copyright law. For good reason – because when people like Sarah break the law and post infringing content on YouTube, YouTube itself could face liability unless they comply with the notice-and-takedown procedures of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 512. That’s why YouTube takes copyright complaints seriously — because it’s the freakin’ law.

So, I sent a notice to YouTube letting them know Sarah was using my work without permission. YouTube agreed, and they pulled her video down.

A few days later, Sarah sent me an email….or at least she tried to (she initially sent it to the wrong address). This led to an unhelp exchange of a couple emails. I sent Sarah a pretty long message. I’m guessing she already made a YouTube video about it, but maybe not since telling both sides really isn’t Sarah’s thing. Anyway, that was all water under the bridge…or so I thought.

Then last week I received a letter from the State Bar of Arizona. The letter said the bar received a complaint from Sarah on October 15, 2025 (the full text of the complaint is shown below). Basically, Sarah told the AZ bar I filed pleadings in San Francisco “containing knowingly false and baseless allegations about me [Sarah].”

Uh, really? Nothing I filed in SF even mentions Sarah. To be fair on page 6 of my Motion for Sanctions, etc., I included a screenshot of the YouTube thumbnail from Sarah’s video about me.

This was done simply to show the Court why I was asking for sanctions against Omar — because he lied to the court in his Motion to Disqualify me, and within days after that motion was filed, Omar’s motion was republished online by several people, including Sarah. Again, I never mentioned her by name, and I certainly made no “false and baseless” allegations against her aside from the fact that she created a 2-hour video about Omar’s motion (which was completely true; she did). So what part of the claim was untrue?

Anyway, apparently Sarah believes the First Amendment only applies to HER, and SHE is the only person allowed to say mean things about other people online. Because my sanctions motion simply mentioned her channel (by showing a thumbnail), Sarah decided to ask the AZ Bar to punish me. Makes sense.

The Bar’s response was to swiftly dismiss Sarah’s complaint 48 hours later. The dismissal letter is here: Sarah Howery Dismissal Letter; Oct 17, 2025.

Couple interesting things about this.

First, this letter was NOT from the “bar guy” I’ve been dealing with (that guy’s name is Jim Lee). Instead, this letter is from a different guy who works for the AZ bar named Matt McGregor. I’ve dealt with Mr. McGregor in the past. As far as I can tell, he’s a good, sensible guy.

That leads to the second interesting thing – Matt dismissed Sarah’s complaint primarily because, I’ll paraphrase:

Why are you complaining to the Arizona bar about things that happened in a California court when the person you are mad at is licensed to practice law in California? Go talk to the California bar, not us.

Matt’s letter DOES (correctly) note lawyers in Arizona can (in theory) be subject to punishment even for conduct occurring outside of Arizona. So, for instance, if an AZ lawyer went to Florida and murdered someone, clearly the AZ bar could take action against their license. DUH.

BUT, I don’t agree that AZ has any authority to act as the initial investigating agency with respect to conduct that occurs in California, particularly in a California court. For one thing, the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct do NOT apply in California courts. California has its own ethical rules for lawyers. Where does the State of Arizona get off telling California what legal standards should apply in California courts?

Arizona does not have that authority, nor does any other state. That’s just the way our federal system works; “[n]o State can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction … . Each State is independent of all of the others in this particular.” BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 571, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 1597 (1996).

In short, California law controls what happens in California, and Arizona law controls what happens here. But the AZ Bar cannot apply the AZ rules to conduct occurring in California; doing so would violate California’s right as a sovereign state to make its own rules.

Oh, wait – this leads to a THIRD interesting thing — the Queen of Darkness herself, Lauren, recently filed a complaint with the AZ bar that is basically identical to Sarah’s. Like Sarah, Lauren whined about the fact that only she is allowed to talk trash about other people. And like Sarah, Lauren claimed some of the things I said in my San Francisco pleadings hurt her widdle feelings because they were all just big, fat lies.

But guess what? Unlike Sarah’s complaint (which the AZ bar tossed without even asking me to respond), Lauren’s complaint went to our old friend Jim Lee. You can see where this is going — unlike Matt McGregor, Jim Lee forwarded Lauren’s complaint and demanded that I respond to it. Because of course he did.

UH, OKAY, here’s my response: https://gingraslaw.com/LaurenResponse.pdf

NOTE: as you can see from the date on the letter, I sent this to Jim Lee BEFORE I saw Sarah’s complaint (which was dismissed by the AZ Bar and sent to me on October 17).

So, I guess rather than applying the law neutrally, the Arizona Bar applies different standards based on which bar counsel you’re dealing with. That’s a shame. The State Bar of Arizona needs to do better. It is a governmental entity, and they are legally required to treat everyone the same, under the law. But they don’t.

Am I concerned about the fact Lauren’s complaint is being handled by Jim Lee? NOPE.

As I mentioned in my intentionally brief response, Arizona recently expanded its anti-SLAPP law, A.R.S. § 12-751. Why does that matter? It matters because in addition to protecting free speech, the law also covers the “right of petition” (this means filing a request with a government entity seeking relief).

The pleadings I filed in SF represent my exercise of the right of petition. Omar lied to the court, so I petitioned the SF judge for some relief. I didn’t get it for technical reasons, but that’s not how the right of petition works. It’s a constitutional right, regardless of whether you win or lose.

So, that means if Jim Lee wants to pursue charges against me, he will have to overcome the Arizona anti-SLAPP law. This means he would have to show that I ACTUALLY did something illegal in California. Lauren’s primary complaint was that I lied to the court. But, of course, I did not lie. Every word I said about Lauren was true (or an expression of my opinion). So good luck with that.

Anyway, when/if the bar ever moves forward on the other stuff, I might share more details about what’s going on. Personally, I am looking forward to having my day in court, confronting my accusers and having a chance to test their claims.

• What is the general nature of your charge of misconduct?

  On September15, 2025, California attorney David S. Gingras submitted a filing in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (Case No. FDV-18-813693) containing knowingly false and baseless allegations about me, a non-party
  with no involvement in the litigation. In this filing Mr. Gingras used my online commentary to make irrelevant and defamatory claims accusing opposing counsel, myself, and others of a deviant conspiracy. During this time Mr. Gingras is not counsel for any party, just a mere intervenor for retaliation. His actions serve no legitimate legal purpose and are not based in fact or law. Mr. Gingras intentions were to harass and misrepresent me due to him having a personal grievance coming from my protected speech and reporting online. He made these statements in the filings under penalty of perjury of Arizona due to his residence & law practice being there. On September 15, 2025, Mr. Gingras submitted a court filing to intervene in a case in which I am not a party or witness. In that filing he: • Falsely accused me of conspiring with opposing counsel, a licensed attorney, for my coverage of a highly publicized case. I have never even spoken to or met the opposing counsel he accuses me of conspiring with. • Falsely accused me of harassment, lies, and attacking someone. I have done none of those things. These allegations were unfounded, irrelevant to the legal issues, and clearly intended to defame, harm my reputation and credibility. I am not involved in the case in which Mr. Gingras has tried to parachute me into. My only connection to this ongoing litigation is as a YouTube commentator known online as LoudLilDucky, who follows and discusses legal filings and true crime. This includes filings in cases involving Mr. Gingras’ client, Laura Owens. He has chosen to include me in his legal filings for the purpose of perpetuating fraud and his false narratives to the court. This is not the first time Mr. Gingras has used his role as a lawyer and the legal process to target me. • He previously filed a copyright strike with YouTube against me where he alleges it is about me reporting on him using a picture when admitting later via email it is actually about a public court filing, he disagrees with not a fair use picture for reporting. • On September 13, 2025, Mr. Gingras wrote on his law firm website blog that I was a cult member and implying that I am a criminal. I am not a criminal or a cult member. • He has made statements threatening to sue legal commentators for discussing his and others public, court filings. Attempting to use his license to silence and financial consequences. • These actions reflect a pattern of using his law license to retaliate against people he disagrees with rather than represent his clients ethically. Mr. Gingras conduct violates a plethora of provisions of The Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 42- A.R.S. Sup. Ct. Rules), as listed below: • ER 4.1- Truthfulness in Statements to Others His court filing contained false statements of fact communicated to third parties through
  public records. • ER 4.4- Respect for Rights of Third Persons Including knowingly false and irrelevant allegations about myself, a non-party. He has used the legal process to harass and burden a third person. • ER 8.4(c) & (d)- Misconduct He has repeatedly
  engaged in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentations to the court. These acts are prejudice to the administration of justice & undermine confidence in the legal system. • ER 3.3- Candor Toward the Tribunal
  He has knowingly made false statements in court filings, presenting fabricated allegations as fact to the tribunal. Mr. Gingras’ filings placed false and harmful allegations in the public record, associating me with unethical conduct. These actions cause reputational
  harm, emotional distress, and create a chilling effect on protected speech. His misuse of legal filings to target non-party undermines the integrity of the judicial process. Mr. Gingras is already dealing with a 2nd DUI in Arizona as of July 6, 2025, with
  the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. To my knowledge he is waiting for a disciplinary hearing on recent behavior in the Owens vs Echard matter, a case in Maricopa County. I am not sure if those have been brought to your attention or if they even need to
  be as it is in another state. I just think you should be aware of a lawyer’s conduct that is a member of the Arizona State Bar. I can provide the following evidence upon request: • A copy of the September 15, 2025, filing with false statements. • Email sent
  to me by Mr. Gingras admissions of ulterior motives of the copyright strike. • Relevant court records and public commentary that provide additional context. • Screenshots and/or links to video and blog posted on law firm website. Mr. Gingras’ actions represent
  a serious misuse of his law license for the purpose of bullying, retaliation, and public misrepresentations, His behavior violates at least Rule 3.3, 4.1, 4.4, and 8.4, if not more in the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. This reflects conduct that is
  unbecoming of an officer of the court, as well as prejudicial to the administration of justice. I respectfully request that the State Bar of Arizona investigate this matter and take appropriate disciplinary action. I am willing and able to provide further
  evidence to support this complaint. Respectfully Submitted, Sarah Howery

I understand that most written charges eventually become a public record. This charge form and other submissions by me will become part of the proceeding. I understand that all information on this form, including my name and address, will be available
for review by the lawyer, legal paraprofessional, alternative business structure, parties to the proceeding, and others who may view the file.

Date: 10/15/2025
Signature: Sarah Howery