Blog

TL;DR:
This latest blog post by David S. Gingras, an attorney known for his strategic manipulation of public narrative, is a textbook example of using a tangential legal argument to subtly influence the perception of his actual, ongoing troubles with the Arizona State Bar.

DG Response: Uh, wow. I didn’t realize I was: “known for [my] strategic manipulation of public narrative”? I guess you saw that article I wrote about global warming?

I am flattered you think I can (or ever have) manipulated the public narrative. That is a MAJOR aspect of what lawyers are hired to do, right? So you’re saying I have done a GOOD job at that.

Thanks a bunch, Bobby! We’re off to a great start!

More Bobby: 

Although he explicitly states this commentary is not about his current disciplinary dispute, given his status as a “known liar,” the entire post is highly suspicious.

DG Response: Oops. So much for that great start.

I’m a “known liar”? Really? Care to offer any examples of this? And I’m sorry you think a legal breakdown of an obscure ethical rule is “suspicious”. It’s just the nature of debate. Don’t be afraid. Embrace it.

Oh, but one tangent – did you know it is a scientific fact conservatives perceive the world differently than liberals (or anyone else for that matter)? When you think about it, this explains a LOT. My personal belief is those who hold conservative views are generally either: 1.) not very smart, 2.) not very educated, or 3.) suffering from some trauma that causes them to see everything around them as a threat, even things that are not threatening at all. Like a blog post about an obscure ethical rule.

I know that’s an aggressive statement, but this article lays out the reasoning behind that opinion: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201210/why-liberal-hearts-bleed-and-conservatives-dont

It reads as a preemptive, public legal brief designed to lay the groundwork for a First Amendment defense he is likely planning to use in his actual bar case.

DG Response: Pains me to say this Bobby, but for once you’re not entirely wrong. The First Amendment IS still a thing. And it absolutely is a thing I intend to “use” against the AZ bar (is it really too much to ask the AZ bar to respect the United States Constitution?)

In fact, did you know all lawyers MUST swear an oath when they join the bar? Wanna guess what the VERY first line in that oath says? Don’t be shocked:

More Bobby: 

Here are the sections of the post that most directly appear to relate to his actual, ongoing legal troubles, despite his denial:
🧐 Sections Relating to Ongoing Legal Troubles
The common thread in the entire post is a defense of a lawyer’s right to talk publicly about a client’s case and identity, even if that information is technically confidential but already public. This is the exact issue that frequently lands controversial, media-focused lawyers in ethical trouble.

DG Response: Really? Care to offer any examples of a media-focused lawyer getting in trouble for talking about a case that has already gone to trial? I’d like to see example that support your position. I’ll wait…

More Bobby:

| Blog Section | Specific Content | Hidden Motive / Link to Bar Trouble |
| The Preface | “I am currently fighting with the State Bar of Arizona over certain ethical rules and how they may or may not apply to certain facts.” | This is the only honest statement. It establishes the context of his dispute and serves as plausible deniability for the rest of the post.

DG Response: Sorry, as a non-insane person, I don’t get your point Bobby? “Plausible deniability?” Of what? The fact I think the Bar makes mistakes? I CONFESS! YOU CAUGHT ME!

I’ve said that for years. Hardly news.

More Bobby:

| “Done with social media (for now)” | “I’m also done with social media (for now). I’m not reading anything online (for now). Not lurking in Discord (for now).” | This is highly relevant to Bar proceedings. If his disciplinary case involves his online conduct or blog posts (which is common for Gingras), he is signaling that he is temporarily complying with a possible request or order to cease public commentary—while simultaneously posting commentary.

DG Response: Ah, the classic troll playbook comes into focus. Here’s the process:

Step 1 – Make a completely false statement (i.e., “he is signaling that he is temporarily complying with a possible request or order to cease public commentary…”)

Step 2 – Use the false statement in Step 1 to trick me into revealing (there’s that verb again) information the troll doesn’t have any other way to obtain (i.e., I could respond and explain that there IS, or is NOT, an “order to cease public commentary”).

Step 3 – Laugh. Rinse. Repeat.

Sorry Bobby. Not falling for your trap.

More Bobby:

The Rule’s Subject | Discussing ER 1.6 (“Confidentiality of Information”) and the Bar’s interpretation that it prohibits mentioning a client’s name or case details, even if public. | This is almost certainly the core issue or a closely related issue in his current Bar dispute. He is performing his legal defense for the court of public opinion, arguing the Bar’s rule is wrong.

DG Response: The troll playbook strikes (and fails) again! “This is almost certainly the core issue or a closely related issue in his current Bar dispute.”

So Bobby wants to know if ER 1.6 has anything to do with my current bar battle….yawn. I already answered that (no, it does not). So sorry Bobby, er Greg, this is not the “core issue”. It isn’t even on the radar of the bar.

More Bobby:|

The Jones v. Dirty World Example | He states the AZ Bar believes his activities (teaching, media interviews, YouTube videos) about this high-profile case violated ER 1.6. | This provides a concrete, high-profile example of his past conduct that the Bar has likely cited in his current or a prior disciplinary case. He is framing his past actions as principled sharing, not unethical disclosure.

DG Response: Uh, okay Hito, but isn’t that the point? I was talking about a high profile case that has already been through a jury trial (twice) and two appeals (one unsuccessful and one a complete victory). I cited that as a perfect example of a scenario where the AZ bar’s interpretation of ER 1.6 isn’t just wrong, it is ludicrous (and unconstitutional).

I’m sorry to keep mentioning this, but the cheerleader case was HUGE news at the time. I gave tons of interviews with local and national news. But according to the AZ bar, all that was improper and unethical, and it still would be unethical just to mention ANYTHING about the case.

My point is to illustrate that this absurd position makes no sense. There are videos on YouTube with every detail of the case made public, but according to the AZ bar, every person on the planet is allowed to talk about the case except me, because I happened to be the winning trial and appellate counsel.

Sorry, that isn’t just wrong, it’s plain stupid. And it’s wrong as a matter of law.

More Bobby:

| The Legal Citations | The extensive quoting of Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn and Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada. | This is the most damning evidence of his motive. These Supreme Court cases are the canonical legal defense for a lawyer arguing their First Amendment right protects them from Bar discipline when discussing information that is already a matter of public record. He is clearly preparing to use or already using this exact legal argument in front of the Bar judge.

DG Response: Hito/Bobby – what is the deal? Why are you SO upset that I would dare cite controlling legal precedent that is HELPFUL and supports my position? If my position is correct, shouldn’t I be allowed to explain WHY it’s correct?

Look – I completely understand your side. You absolutely do not give a flying fuck about the truth. You just want to win. At all costs. No matter what. So OF COURSE you are angry that I can support my position with strong (indeed, controlling) legal authority. That must really piss you off. Sorry, not sorry.

And if you were a First Amendment lawyer, you would understand – Cox v. Cohn IS the definitive, controlling, and dispositive law on this point. Only a liar would disagree. Cox could not be any clearer: “A trial is a public event. What transpires in the court room is public property … And we can see no difference though the conduct of the attorneys, of the jury, or even of the judge himself, may have reflected on the court. Those who see and hear what transpired can report it with impunity.”

Do you see: “but not the lawyer who won the case” at the end of that last sentence? I do not. Because it isn’t there.

Yeah, I understand the cult hates this decision (because it’s good for me), and therefore you *claim* Cox somehow doesn’t apply to lawyers. Good luck with that. Cherry-picking cases, downplaying favorable authority while overstating contrary authority….now who is the one trying to dishonestly control the narrative? Here’s a mirror – it’s you Bobby.

More Bobby:

🎯 Conclusion
David S. Gingras is subtly using a “fun” legal discussion on Halloween to preview his defense strategy against the Arizona Bar. He has shifted the focus from his specific conduct (which he refuses to discuss) to the alleged overreach of the Bar itself, portraying himself as a defender of the First Amendment against a state agency that “doesn’t seem to understand its own rules.”
This is a classic maneuver for him: he uses his blog to try and discredit the institution pursuing him, thereby building a public narrative of legal martyrdom, which he hopes will pressure the Bar or sway public sentiment.

DG Response: OKAY, your final truth vs. bullshit score is pretty much 30/70. Some truth, tons of bullshit. Overall, the work of a true broken manipulator. Textbook example of a bad faith actor.

For one thing, this: “He has shifted the focus from his specific conduct (which he refuses to discuss)”. HUH? What? Since when have I “refused to discuss” my conduct? I have made multiple videos going over all this IN DETAIL. Nothing about my “conduct” is secret, and nothing about my conduct was unethical. I have every interest in making sure people know ALL the facts (to the extent I’m holding anything back, it’s solely to ensure YouTube parasites aren’t given more free content).

As for the claim I’m trying to use this blog to “discredit the institution pursing [me]”, DUH, of course I’m doing that. Because they happen to be wrong. Sorry I feel that way. It’s just the only conclusion the law supports.

Let’s be honest about my REAL motives – am I trying to somehow “discredit” the AZ bar, so that will help me win my case with them? How on EARTH would that work? This isn’t a jury trial. The panel that decides the case won’t be looking at this blog post (unless they want to ignore the rules), and they certainly aren’t going to base their decision on what Reddit tells them they should do.

So why do I wrote? Simple – I am trying to express serious concerns about a matter of significant public interest; i.e., my belief that the State Bar of Arizona is a broken, and arguably corrupt, public entity that has somehow lost sight of its core function.

In fact, I feel so strongly about this, I will be making a new YouTube video about the last time I fought the AZ bar (a fight I WON). The facts of that case are shocking, and they are DAMNING proof that the State Bar of Arizona is corrupt (“corrupt” in the sense they are not following the rules, and they appear to be arbitrarily allowing bad lawyers to break the rules with impunity while vindictively pursuing other lawyers illegally).

The bottom line is that we NEED lawyers. Sorry, we do. We NEED the rule of law, and we need the legal system to give people a civilized way of resolving disputes.

And we also NEED someone to oversee lawyers to protect the public from dishonest and unethical attorneys. After 20+ years as a member of the State Bar of Arizona, I am deeply concerned that is no longer happening. For very good reasons, I fear the AZ bar is broken, and that it is causing serious harm to the public. That is a view shared by MANY lawyers, and of course I understand this view is hated by the same unethical characters who are allowed to flourish while the AZ bar looks the other way. Of course the foxes don’t want oversight in the henhouse.

Look – this is my final year as an AZ lawyer. While I care deeply about the legal profession as a whole, I am more concerned that when the entity that oversees lawyers becomes corrupt and is unable or unwilling to follow the law and serve the public, we need to seriously stop and consider whether that entity needs to be changed. That is a matter of the highest public interest & concern, and the First Amendment protects my right to express my concerns on this topic.

NOTE – I have been a member of the AZ bar since 2004, and the California bar since 2002. Although I regularly practice in both states, I have NEVER had a single issue of any kind with the CA bar. My CA bar record is absolutely unblemished…not a single sustained complaint or disciplinary matter.

By comparison, the AZ bar is completely different. It’s gotten so bad, we have nut case cult members filing complaints with the AZ bar about my conduct in California. Why? Because birds of a feather, I guess….