a Glendale state senator, who has called Jan. 6 riot reports ‘fake,’ sanctions attorney for filing what he believes claims to be ‘in good faith’ on behalf of clients I’m chasing the judge.

However, Republican Anthony Kahn said after a judge concluded that he and two other lawmakers had a frivolous lawsuit against another lawmaker over his role in the 2021 event in the United States. , claims it had nothing to do with his own attorney being ordered to pay $75,000 in attorneys’ fees.

And the only example Khan cited as an issue when the House Judiciary Committee approved his SB 1092 suspended the legal license of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani for making false claims about the 2020 election. It was a 2021 decision by the New York State Bar Association.

Still, he argued, the state’s attorneys are under pressure not to take up certain types of cases or make public statements on certain topics. “

“I remember the[Arizona]State Bar Association sending an email stating that attorneys should remain silent on the matter and not represent their clients on the matter,” he said. told to

“It’s very interesting,” D-Phoenix Rep. Analise Ortiz replied. “I want to see that email.”

But a spokesman for the State Bar Association called the allegations “offensive and plainly untrue.”

“This is not even a subject for discussion in this organization,” he continued. “It is irresponsible to make such baseless claims.”

Khan did not respond to a request to compose an email.

At the heart of the issue are Mr Khan’s and some conservatives’ claims that the judicial system and state bar associations, which handle the discipline of lawyers subject to Supreme Court review, are hostile to their problems. is.

This has drawn attention after state as well as federal judges imposed financial penalties on both litigants and their clients who filed various lawsuits challenging the election results.

In 2021, a judge will award Arizona Republicans and their attorneys legal fees for filing what he called a baseless lawsuit made in bad faith that could undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election. ordered to pay $18,000 as

Most recently, a federal judge ruled that Maricopa County would take legal action after it dismissed a lawsuit in which lawyers hired by Kari Lake and Mark Finkem argued that it was illegal to use machines to count ballots. He said he was paying the attorney’s fees incurred.

And whether Lake will be forced to pay legal fees she continues to sue to overturn the outcome of the 2022 gubernatorial race is still pending.

But attorney Alexander Collodin, R-Scottsdale, goes beyond attorney fees to the rest of SB 1092. He said he would be subject to disciplinary action.

“As is well known, our firm has been involved in many politically charged cases,” said Corodin, a member of the Judiciary Committee and voted to advance Khan’s bill to the House of Representatives. said.

This includes an ongoing lawsuit filed by him on behalf of the Arizona Republican Party, which argues that the 1991 law allowing anyone to vote early is unconstitutional and, thus far, this lawsuit. The allegations have failed to gain support in court.

“We have random people filing bar complaints against us all the time,” Collodin said.

And they don’t come from clients.

“It’s random people who are upset that conservatives have a voice. At least conservatives they don’t like have a voice in court,” he said. I was. “So it’s actually gotten really bad.”

Khan said SB 1092 protects lawyers’ “freedom of speech.”

“This is a good bill to stop the state bar from imposing discipline on political speech,” he said.

But the measures aren’t just for bars. It also said she would lose 10% of her budget if the Supreme Court reprimanded the lawyer who filed the lawsuit.

Ortiz asked Khan whether the $75,000 fine imposed on his attorney in his case against Yuma state representative Charlene Fernandez at the time “stimulated” him to propose this measure. I asked.

“Absolutely not,” he replied. Khan said he’s been battling the state bar for years and sees the state bar’s policy of pursuing lawyers who handle unpopular issues.

Ortiz pursued this issue.

“What I’m trying to understand is in which case we determine that the attorney was targeted for political remarks, or that it was a baseless lawsuit, or that the claim should never have been filed. I think you’re just trying to understand what you’re judging to be the case and why your attorney was forced to pay $75,000,” she said.

Khan, a former state congressman, said Fernandez defamed them by writing letters to federal law enforcement officials asking them to investigate the trio’s activities in connection with the events around January 1. It stems from claims by Congressman Mark Finkem and Congressman Paul Gosser. 6 Riots and breaches of the United States Capitol.

Yuma County Superior Court Judge Levi Gunderson, in dismissing the case and assessing the charges, said Fernandez had an absolute constitutional right to send the letter. , said the lawsuit was “primarily brought against political opponents for the purpose of harassment and was brought for improper purposes.”

Khan, who was in the Houses of Parliament that day, began defending what happened there.

“January 6, you know, you’ve probably seen Tucker Carlson and Fox News. It’s all fake,” he said. It refers to Carlson airing a selection of security tapes from the Capitol that day and at one point calling it “almost peaceful chaos.”

A 5-3 intraparty vote to advance Khan’s bill despite testimony from Attorney Liana Garcia, who is lobbying for the Arizona Judiciary Council, a division of the Arizona Supreme Court. was done.

Garcia noted that any move to impose financial penalties on the court system for what Khan’s bill deems unacceptable discipline would not affect the judges involved. On , Garcia said the only people who would suffer would be those seeking court services.

And then there are the more practical questions.

Corodin said the action would essentially require the Supreme Court to determine whether it violated the terms of SB 1092 when disciplining an attorney. is high, suggesting that if the law moves forward, a mechanism for something like a “special master” with final decision-making power may be needed.