Lake’s lawyer suspended for making false statements in court

The state’s chief disciplinary judge suspended Kari Lake’s attorney, Bryan Blehm, for two months with a one-year probation for claiming in filings with the Arizona Supreme Court that it was an “undisputed fact” that Maricopa County had submitted more than 35,500 ballots to the 2022 election count.

The judge denied a request from the bar association to grant her a six-month and one-day suspension. Otherwise, Blehm would have had to go through a reinstatement process to be able to practice law again.

In an order, Judge Margaret Downie found that Blehm’s false statements to the state Supreme Court violated four ethical rules for lawyers. Those rules prohibit a lawyer from making a good faith plea to a matter without legal basis, making false statements to the court, and conducting himself in a manner that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, or that precludes the administration of justice.

Downie concluded that Blehm had “violated fundamental ethical duties to the legal system and the profession” and that his misrepresentations “necessarily prolong the proceedings before the Arizona Supreme Court.”

However, because this was Blehm’s first offense and Downie believed that “the misrepresentations in question were so blatant that there was little chance that the Arizona Supreme Court could be misled by them,” she suspended Blehm for two months instead of six months or slightly more.

Blehm was charged by the Arizona State Bar with two counts: one relating to the Lake case and the other relating to alleged improper interference by the federal government in the state’s judicial system and the Arizona State Bar.

The Bar Association dismissed the second count and asked the presiding disciplinary judge for summary judgment on Blehm’s claim in the Lake case.

Downie granted the motion for summary judgment and held an aggravating and mitigating circumstances hearing on May 21 to determine what sentence to impose. Blehm did not appear at the hearing.

In a ruling Friday, Downie found that Blehm’s case presented five aggravating circumstances supported by the record: dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses, malicious obstruction of a disciplinary proceeding by willful disregard of rules or orders of the disciplinary authority, refusal to admit the nature of the misconduct and considerable experience in the practice of law.

Blehm did not present any mitigating circumstances, but the State Bar noted that mitigating circumstances included the absence of prior disciplinary action and the imposition of other penalties or sanctions.

Downie gave less weight to the mitigating circumstances because Blehm had “steadfastly refused to admit any wrongdoing or even negligent missteps” and found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances.

In assessing the length of Blehm’s sentence, Downie acknowledged the bar’s request for six months and one day. This would require Blehm to go through a reinstatement process and evidentiary hearing where his rehabilitation is demonstrated by “clear and convincing evidence.” A shorter suspension would still require Blehm to seek reinstatement, but simply by submitting an affidavit.

Downie concluded that a long-term suspension “for a first offense is excessive because, while these are serious violations, they are relatively isolated and easily identifiable false statements.”

Blehm will be suspended for 60 days in one month and, as part of his probation, must attend further legal training and bear the costs and expenses of the Bar Association in connection with the disciplinary proceedings.

Blehm did not respond to a request for comment. The bar association declined to comment because the case is ongoing.