In the Matter of Rachel R. Alexander, 232 Ariz. 1

Background

Alexander, Arizona attorney since 2000, worked as a deputy county attorney and aided Thomas in the RICO case.
MCAO and Sheriff’s Office considered filing a RICO suit; Alexander led/assisted, with supervision by Spaw and later other counsel.
The RICO case against Board, judges, and others was argued to be legally/factually deficient from the start.
Alexander substituted for Aubuchon, faced warnings that the complaint was weak, yet continued with amendments and opposition to dismissals.
Independent bar counsel investigated; after hearings, the panel found misconduct on multiple counts and suspended Alexander for six months and one day.
Arizona Supreme Court reduced the sanction to six months and required ten hours of ethics education as a condition for reinstatement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was ER 3.1 violated by maintaining a frivolous RICO suit?	Alexander knowingly pursued a frivolous claim.	Alexander relied on supervising counsel and studied the matter in good faith.	Yes, ER 3.1 violated; knowingly maintained a frivolous claim.
Did ER 4.4(a) violation require a demonstrated improper motive?	Lack of substantive basis showed improper means intended to embarrass defendants.	Motivation need not be proven; conduct prejudiced justice regardless of motive.	No ER 4.4(a) violation found due to lack of proof of purpose to embarrass or burden.
Did ER 1.1 (competence) require dismissal of the RICO case due to lack of knowledge and preparation?	Alexander could achieve competence by studying and associating with experienced counsel.	Alexander lacked the necessary legal knowledge and preparation to competently handle RICO.	Yes, ER 1.1 violated; incompetent handling given limited experience and insufficient preparation.
Did ER 1.7(a)(1) (current conflicts) or ER 1.7(a)(2) (personal interest) apply to Alexander’s representation of the Board?	There was a continuing attorney-client relationship with the Board during the RICO suit.	The Board had conflicts earlier; MCAO’s role and representation status did not create a current adverse representation.	ER 1.7(a)(1) violated; ER 1.7(a)(2) not proven.
Was Former Rule 53 (cooperation) violated by failing to promptly cooperate with bar counsel?	Alexander was not personally obstructive; timely response depends on counsel.	Lawyers obstructed the investigation; respondent is responsible for those actions.	Yes, former Rule 53 violation; cooperation obligation violated.

Key Cases Cited

In re Curtis, 184 Ariz. 256 (Arizona 1995) (clear and convincing standard; motive considered in evaluating frivolousness)
In re Levine, 174 Ariz. 146 (Arizona 1993) (nonfrivolous argument vs. frivolous conduct; subjective goodwill element)
In re Phillips, 226 Ariz. 112 (Arizona 2010) (proportionality and sanctions framework for lawyer discipline)
In re Wolfram, 174 Ariz. 49 (Arizona 1993) (standards for deciding sanction severity; aggravating/mitigating factors)
In re Zawada, 208 Ariz. 232 (Arizona 2004) (pattern of misconduct and escalating sanctions framework)