Lake District attorney suspended from practicing law for 60 days for lying to Supreme Court • Arizona Mirror

The Arizona State Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Blehm and requested a suspension of six months and one day as punishment for Blehm’s lies to the Arizona Supreme Court. In an appeal of Lake’s rejected attempt to overturn her election loss, Blehm and Washington, D.C., labor attorney Kurt Olsen falsely claimed it was an “undisputed fact” that 35,000 illegal ballots were included in the final vote count in Maricopa County.

No evidence was presented to support this claim and the two later sentenced by the State Supreme Court to pay a $2,000 fine.

For suspensions of more than six months, a lawyer who wishes to return to practice must attend an evidentiary hearing and provide reasons for reinstatement. At a hearing on May 21, lawyers from the Bar Association told presiding disciplinary judge Margaret Downie that the suspension was justified because Blehm had clearly provided false evidence to the court and had shown no remorse for doing so.

One day before his disciplinary hearing, Blehm claimed he had been “found guilty without trial” in a Post on social media site Xformerly Twitter, and on the day of the hearing did not show up.

In its 12-page ruling, the panel acknowledged that Blehm had violated ethical rules by making false statements and had jeopardized the reputation of the entire court case.

“Defendant’s misrepresentations have unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings before the Arizona Supreme Court. And every time an attorney attempts to mislead a court, it damages the reputation of the legal profession and fosters distrust in it,” the order states.

But the panel ultimately concluded that approving a suspension longer than six months was unfair because Blehm had no prior ethics violations. And, the order says, Blehm and Olsen’s false statements were easily identified by the state Supreme Court, minimizing the harm they caused.

“Is a long-term suspension necessary here to protect the population, the Integrity of the profession in the eyes of the public and scares (Blehm) and others “What would deter attorneys from engaging in similar conduct?” the panel asked. “This is (Blehm’s) first disciplinary offense, and the misrepresentations in question were so blatant that there was little chance that the Arizona Supreme Court would be misled by them.”

However, the order states that future ethical misconduct by Blehm could result in harsher penalties. Blehm will also be required to reimburse the bar association for legal costs.

Neither the Bar Association nor Blehm responded to requests for comment.

Olsen, meanwhile, still faces two disciplinary hearings scheduled for later this month. He is accused of making false statements in a lawsuit over electronic counting machines and in Lake’s election challenges. But because Olsen is licensed to practice law in Maryland, not Arizona, the highest penalty the bar can impose in either case is a formal reprimand.