Update – I turned comments on. But will turn them off if people get too salty.
Mmmm….can you taste that turkey?🦃
All our differences aside, I want to extend my warmest wishes for EVERYONE to have a nice, relaxing, festive Thanksgiving. It’s one of my favorite days of the year, and I’m looking forward to enjoying every moment of it.
But before I do, I wanted to take a stab at addressing the SECOND bullshit claim the AZ Bar Guy is pursing against me. This involves a matter designated as File 24-3080 on the list below. This is the second specific thing where Jim Lee is the complainant.
Last week I made a video talking about the LAST item on the list below (File No. 25-1230) which was another allegation Jim Lee came up with on his own, accusing me of violating a court order relating to a Motion to Compel. As I explained in that video, Jim Lee’s allegations were 100% factually false. Not even 1% true. Of course, it is possible he realized this and removed that claim from the complaint he plans to file. I have no idea because I haven’t seen the complaint yet, but I guess next week we’ll finally get to see it.
OK, so what exactly was File No. 24-3080 all about? Thankfully, this part of the case has nothing to do with any ER 1.6/privileged material, so I’m happy to show you the complete allegations in their entirety. In fact, the entire complaint is only 4 paragraphs, as shown below, and the whole thing is based on this email which is a matter of public record:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1415588/gov.uscourts.azd.1415588.1.0_1.pdf
So, Jim Lee says because I used the word “asshole” in a private email sent to Reddit, this violated Arizona Supreme Court Rule 41(b)(7) which says it is the duty of all lawyers:
(7) To avoid engaging in unprofessional conduct and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness unless required by the duties to a client or the tribunal.
Arizona Supreme Court Rule 41(b)(7)
Ummmm…..okay, notice anything wrong? First, the anonymous JFC people I was referring to are not “a party or a witness” to any case I was working on. Second, the email I sent to Reddit was NOT sent on behalf of any client. I sent the email for MYSELF, because I was unhappy with someone taking my copyright-protected material and using it to create derivative works.
Why does that matter? Because the Arizona Supreme Court only has authority to regulate the practice of law. Sending an email on your own behalf is not practicing law, even if you are asserting your own legal rights; “one who acts only for himself in legal matters is not … practicing law.” Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Dev. & Const. of the Sw., LLC, 235 Ariz. 125, 127 n.3, 329 P.3d 229, 231 n.3 (Ct. App. 2014) (quoting State ex rel. Frohmiller v. Hendrix, 59 Ariz. 184, 190, 124 P.2d 768, 772 (1942)); “In Arizona, one who acts only for himself in legal matters is not considered to be engaged in the practice of law.” Connor v. Cal-Az Props., Inc., 137 Ariz. 53, 56, 668 P.2d 896, 899 (Ct. App. 1983) (citing State ex rel. Frohmiller v. Hendrix, 59 Ariz. 184, 190, 124 P.2d 768, 772 (1942)).
Look – I’m sure Jim Lee, for all his other faults, understands that in Arizona, the “practice of law” has a very clear and specific definition. Don’t take my word for it – let’s just quote the definition used by the Arizona Supreme Court:
(b) Definition. “Practice of law” means providing legal advice or services to or for another by:
(1) preparing or expressing legal opinions to or for another person or entity;(2) representing a person or entity in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process such as arbitration or mediation;(3) preparing a document, in any medium, on behalf of a specific person or entity for filing in any court, administrative agency, or tribunal;(4) negotiating legal rights or responsibilities on behalf of a specific person or entity; or(5) preparing a document, in any medium, intended to affect or secure a specific person’s or entity’s legal rights.
At the very least, our cases recognize that disciplinary rules governing the legal profession cannot punish activity protected by the First Amendment, and that First Amendment protection survives even when the attorney violates a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of law.
To the extent you believe statements like “asshole” are not protected by the First Amendment, please cite legal authority to support your position. See, e.g., Leidholdt v. L.F.P., Inc., 860 F.2d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding First Amendment protected magazine’s right to publish “Asshole of the Month” column which included article criticizing a plaintiff as a “pus bloated walking sphincter ….”); Michino v. Lewis, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77614, *26 (D.Hawaii 2015) (holding First Amendment protected plaintiff’s right to call police officer “a fucking asshole”, and explaining, “As rude and sophomoric as Plaintiff’s speech to Officer Lewis may have been, ‘it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer’ and, as such, ‘fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment.” (cleaned up) (emphasis added) (quoting Duran v. City of Douglas, Ariz., 904 F.2d 1372, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990)); City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987)); Wood v. Eubanks, 25 F.4th 414, 424 (6th Cir. 2022) (compiling cases, holding First Amendment protected plaintiff’s right to use coarse language including, “motherfucker” and “asshole”; “We have held that similar speech is protected by the First Amendment when unaccompanied by other conduct, which is consistent with the rule that ‘[f]its of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Golden Rule’ but are not illegal ….”) (emphasis added) (quoting Green v. Barber, 310 F.3d 889, 895 (6th Cir. 2002) (explaining, “Standards of decorum have changed dramatically since 1942, moreover, and indelicacy no longer places speech beyond the protection of the First Amendment.”); Kindred v. Colby, 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5105, *9, 50 N.Y.S.3d 26 (Supreme Court of New York, Monroe County, 2015) (holding First Amendment protected statement: “Gotta love assholes who hide behind group names like ‘Friends of Northhampton Park’.”) (emphasis added); Tuvell v. Marshall, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 1107; 137 N.E.3d 1090; 2019 WL 5654950 (Mass. App. 2019) (holding First Amendment protected speech criticizing Plaintiff by referring to him as “’special’, a ‘jerk,’ ‘a few cherries short of a sundae,’ and ‘an asshole,’ and describing his posts as ‘whiny’ and ‘bitching.’”) (emphasis added); Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34, 37 (App. 1st Div. 1999) (holding First Amendment protected statement referring to plaintiff as: “what a fucking asshole.”) (emphasis added).
Mr. Lee never answered my question, and never cited a SINGLE case to support his position. The reason is obvious – because he couldn’t find a single case to support his view.
Instead, in his ROI, he meekly offered this retort: “none of those cases [cited by Gingras] were lawyer regulation/discipline cases.” OK, so apparently the fact that no other bar counsel in the country was foolish enough to take such a groundless position somehow means Jim Lee’s charge has merit?
NO. NO. NO.
It really is a shame that Jim Lee doesn’t appear to take his oath to support the United States Constitution seriously, nor does he appear to care about committing legal malpractice on behalf of his client (the AZ Bar). What I mean by that is simple – Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law will require Mr. Lee to show the charge in File No. 24-3080 is: ” justified by clearly established law and that the responding party did not act in order to deter, prevent or retaliate against the moving party’s exercise of constitutional rights.” A.R.S. § 12-751(B)(1).
Here, I understand and respect the fact that Mr. Lee apparently grew up in an extremely strict home where curse words were not allowed. That’s sad, but it’s also not my fucking problem. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Green v. Barber, 310 F.3d 889, 895 (6th Cir. 2002): “Standards of decorum have changed dramatically since 1942, moreover, and indelicacy no longer places speech beyond the protection of the First Amendment.”
Jim Lee may think we’re back in 1942. I don’t agree. Neither has any court in the United States in the last 50 years. The term asshole may not be protected speech in Jim Lee’s delicate world. Unfortunately for him, here in the real world where I live, it is.
So, when I finally get Mr. Lee’s complaint next week, the plan is simple — I could immediately move to dismiss, but I won’t. Instead, I’m going to issue subpoenas to get info from Judge Mata and others to defend that part of the charge against me.
With respect to File No. 24-3080, no discovery is needed; I certainly called JFC “assholes”, and I certainly did this while NOT engaged in the practice of law. And countless courts have held, all across the country, calling someone an asshole is not nice, but it is protected by the First Amendment.
So, that part of the case will be the subject of an anti-SLAPP motion. If that motion is granted, I’ll ask the court to order the AZ Bar to pay fees, and damages including the time I have lost responding to such a frivolous and harassing charge.
Anyway, enjoy your holiday tomorrow. ZERO chance of any more blogs/videos from me….at least until after the pumpkin pie.
Question: why are you posting these blogs? Who are trying to convince? Your peers voted against you, you’re not convincing the bar, no one other than JFC is following your blogs, what are you trying to accomplish?
The way you worded you question provides the answer. You think I have already lost. You think “my peers voted against me”. Why do you think that? Because JFC lies constantly, and people like you believe those lies. So these posts are my small way of offering truth against those lies.
A second reason is I need to do this anyway; once the bar process actually starts, I will need to present my response. Yes, that will happen before a judge, not online, but I’m using these posts as a convenient way of organizing my response to each thing the bar guy is claiming. Then, once it is time to file my stuff with the judge, I can basically copy and paste these notes into a pleading for the judge.
It’s frustrating when people make baseless allegations with little to no evidence, especially when it can tarnish a reputation. It’s good that you’re addressing these claims head-on and bringing transparency to the process. The fact that these accusations are so easily disproven makes it even more baffling that they were brought up in the first place.
Please tell me this comment is meant to be said with sarcasm.
This man is hypocrisy personified. Literally every argument he makes is something his client Laura Owen’s has done (frivolous lawsuits, wasting courts resources etc etc) yet that’s not relevant apparently. The level of irony that this man is so anti-Trump yet he is exactly like him, completely lacking accountability for anything he’s done and posessing zero moral compass about lying, bending the truth to fit his narrative etc etc.
And even now when she’s been slapped with 14 felony charges, he’s tripling down and saying he totally has her back. Truly a fascinating character, they should study both him and Laura in psychology classes.
You’re trying to have it both ways. At the time, you wanted to let Reddit know that you were an AZ lawyer in the practice of law. But now you’re claiming, when in trouble with the Bar, that your threats to Reddit were no different than any other disgruntled content creators’. This is precisely the sort of conduct that the AZ Bar hates and is in a position to regulate: lawyers throwing their weight around with quasi-legal threats, dishonoring the profession.
You could’ve avoided this by acting honorably in your communication with Reddit.
I understand why you feel this way. But you don’t understand how the DMCA works. There is no “weight” that can be thrown around with the DMCA. You either have a valid claim or you don’t. It makes no difference if I am a lawyer or not. The DMCA gives certain legal rights to copyright owners. Those rights don’t change based on whether the owner is a lawyer or not.
Did you see my video about Andrew Ivchenko? He registered a copyright in his wife’s name, and then he sent DMCA takedown notices to Google and Twitter, some of which never even mentioned Andrew’s status as a lawyer. And guess what? Those notices (even though they were groundless and fraudulent) still worked. Bottom line is you don’t have to be a lawyer to own a copyright, and if you own one, website owners will normally honor a facially valid DMCA notice, regardless of who sends it.
P.S. I honestly have to laugh when you say I am in “trouble with the bar” over the Reddit thing. That position is laughable. If anything, the bar is in trouble with ME. Jim Lee is trying to illegally violate my constitutional rights. This is so clearly illegal, I predict it isn’t going to end well for him. In theory, if the bar actually followed the rules (which we know they don’t), Jim Lee could face discipline for bringing a charge he knows is entirely groundless. But don’t hold your breath. I’m not.
And you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and mission of the AZ Bar and the nature of the allegations against you. You’re responding with legal arguments against ethics and professional charges. Even if you were 100% acting legally, the AZ Bar could and should *still* sanction you for behaving unethically and unprofessionally. In other words, I or the AZ Bar don’t need to understand how the DMCA works to charge you with acting or looking like an asshole. So you’ll need to demonstrate to the Bar that you were acting professionally and ethically: and your main argument you’ve presented is that when you acted like an unprofessional asshole you were not doing so in your capacity as an AZ lawyer. Good luck with that…
This is truly one of the most confused, valueless comments I have ever seen in my entire life. I am guessing based on the nature of what you wrote, you probably think Trump’s political views are NOT extreme-right enough.
That’s fine, but you are still an absolute idiot if you believe a single word of what you said here is true. You appear to believe lawyers have NO First Amendment rights (despite me citing multiple U.S. Supreme Court cases that say exactly the opposite).
You also appear to believe the bar has the right to invent ANY arbitrary rule it wants (i.e., some made-up definition of what is “professional”), and then enforce that rule retroactively. 100% wrong.
You ALSO completely misrepresent the nature of bar discipline. You state – FALSELY – that I have some burden to “to demonstrate to the Bar that you were acting professionally and ethically.” HOLY LORD – PLEASE TELL ME YOU DON’T HAVE CHILDREN. The world cannot tolerate DNA of such low quality as yours.
Look, if you want to believe the fictional world you describe exists, that’s fine. But you are absolutely wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong. I could cite limitless case law to prove that, but you either wouldn’t read it, wouldn’t understand it, or would just keep lying.
Get off my blog and go back to watching Fox & Friends.
This Thanksgiving I am MOST thankful that you, David, (and also Laura Owens!) did not and/or could not procreate. 🙏🏼
David, I was actually feeling quite persuaded by this post until I went back and looked at the email in question in its entirety.
If you announce that you are an attorney in Arizona, clearly state that you are currently representing laura against Clayton , and that your YouTube was specifically to clear up information from Clayton’s fans IN THIS CASE, doesn’t that seem to suggest this is done within your role as a practicing attorney representing laura against Clayton? I have included a larger portion of your email below:
“My name is David Gingras. I am a lawyer in Phoenix, Arizona, and I’m sending you this notification of claimed infringement per 17 U.S. C. § 512(c)(3).
NOTE – I have been the DMCA agent for many websites, and I have reviewed literally 10s of thousands of DMCA notices in my life. For that reason, I will give you all of the information to ensure this notice is valid, but I will also give you a little extra information to make this easier and less boring.
Here’s the deal – I am currently representing a woman named Laura Owens in a case involving a guy named Clayton Echard. Clayton was previously the star on the reality TV show, The Bachelor.
Laura claimed she became pregnant after hooking up with Clayton in 2023. In response, Clayton claimed Laura “faked” her pregnancy. This is the subject of a pending lawsuit here in Arizona. I won’t bore you with all the details, except to say the case has generated TONS of attention. The case also has an extremely active community on Reddit here: https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeForClayton
Clayton’s fans have posted TONS of YouTube videos about this case. And by tons, I mean thousands of videos.
As part of my effort to respond to Clayton’s fans, I have started posting my own videos talking about the case. These are videos that I create myself, and I am the copyright owner in all of them. My channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/@DavidSGingras
Clayton’s fans are, generally speaking, total fucking psychotic assholes. As part of this, Clayton’s fans (the ones with YouTube channels) have recently started copying my videos and streaming them on their own channels. They are doing this for the stated purpose of ensuring that I do not get views on my own channel.“
OK, this is actually a GOOD comment, and I appreciate you taking the time to leave it. So let me see if I can explain.
This was your concern: “doesn’t that seem to suggest this is done within your role as a practicing attorney representing Laura against Clayton?”
Answer = NO. The DMCA notice was NOT sent to Reddit for Laura. Laura doesn’t own the copyright in my YouTube videos. I own the copyright. As the copyright owner, I was entitled to ask Reddit to remove infringing content based on the DMCA. This was ME, acting for MYSELF. Nothing about the DMCA notice involved giving legal advice to Laura or to anyone else. And as I said in the post, when a lawyer is handling their own legal affairs, they are NOT engaged in the practice of law.
Let me just make it this simple – HAVING a law license, and doing something that qualifies as practicing law, are two ENTIRELY separate things. A license to practice law is required if you want to engage in the practice of law, but the fact I have a license does not mean everything I do falls under the definition of practicing law.
Look at it this way — if I get disbarred, that means I couldn’t practice law anymore, right? But even if I was disbarred, I could absolutely still invoke my rights under the DMCA. In fact, even if I was disbarred, I could still file a lawsuit for copyright infringement. A license to practice is only required if you are giving legal advice to SOMEONE ELSE. Anyone in the USA is always allowed to represent themselves, regardless of whether they have a license.
So why did I refer to myself as a lawyer, and why did I mention Laura’s case? The answer is found in the email itself — I was sending the DMCA notice to Reddit’s DMCA agent. I have served as a DMCA agent for MANY websites (TheDirty.com, RipoffReport.com, and many others). As a DMCA agent, I have reviewed literally 10’s of thousands of incoming DMCA notices. Based on that experience, I know DMCA agents typically get really bored with the flood of notices they get, and also, easily 95% of DMCA notices are legally defective (for technical reasons).
Because of this, I tried to make my notice a little more entertaining than usual (by providing some background info), and I explained I was a lawyer NOT because I was practicing law, but just so the person who received the notice would have some extra context. Trust me – when you get 100 DMCA notices per day, they all start to look the same. That’s why I gave some extra info.
Bottom line — the fact I mentioned being a lawyer does not mean I was doing anything that qualified as practicing law. By definition, that DMCA notice was unquestionably NOT something for which a law license was required. It is therefore not within the Arizona Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to punish, even if my speech wasn’t fully protected by the First Amendment, which it most certainly is.
Easiest anti-SLAPP win ever.
Pingback: Unpacking The Bar’s Bullshit; Part 3/6 – YOU Decide! – Gingras Law Office, PLLC