Some interesting (if you are me) news came out of Arizona this week:  Its Supreme Court approved a rule change limiting the ability of people not directly involved in, or who do not have first-hand knowledge of, a particular matter to pursue ethics complaints.

Under the revision to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 53, clients of the lawyer, judges who learned of the conduct through their judicial role, and others with “direct and specific first-hand knowledge of the conduct described in the charge” have standing and can still file grievances and be considered a “complainant,” who gets the whole panoply of accompanying rights (which in Arizona includes notification of investigation status and the ability to object to proposed agreements between the lawyer and the State Bar, Arizona’s disciplinary authority).

Others, however, would only be able to file grievances, and the Bar would have discretion as to whether to pursue an inquiry or dismiss it. People who are not “complainants” would have no further involvement with the grievance and no rights conferred by Rule.

According to a Arizona Daily Star/Tuscon.com article, this change was originally adopted in August ahead of this years election, but was made permanent this week, in response to a (small) flurry of election-related complaints that have come from strangers to the transactions (primarily Democrats) that appeared to be filed (primarily against Republicans who were involved in the 2020 election) for political reasons.

I am not familiar enough with Arizona to know whether this was a direct response to an organized effort like the 65 Project (which I have written about before), rage-posting-inspired Astroturf, or if it was just the result of complaints by the target(s) of the efforts, or a combination. From what I understand, some other states already have written or unwritten rules along these lines.

At this point, I am withholding judgment, in large part because I am not actually sure how I feel about these sorts of standing rules. As a respondent’s counsel, I should like rules like this. And, as an election lawyer who, particularly if a butterfly had flapped its wings in a different direction a month ago, might be on the receiving end of a politically motivated grievance for insisting that lawfully cast ballots be counted, limiting the ability of strangers to make my life miserable certainly has some appeal.

But there is some ambivalence here and I am not sure why. Maybe I am trying a little too hard to parse out what “direct and specific first-hand knowledge” means through my anyone-can-file-a-grievance-against-anyone-for-any reason Wisconsin lens.    

But anyway, if you are a random person who is mad about a lawyer you read about, a few years back I wrote a handy “Guide to Grievances Against Public Figures” which still holds today, at least in Wisconsin.