Kiera Riley
Arizona Capitol Times
A state Supreme Court ruling and ongoing attorney discipline proceedings stand to shape how courts and the State Bar dole out discipline for attorneys involved in unsuccessful election cases.
Though the courts, the bar and attorneys can discern the merits of a given case using existing ethical rules and statutory framework, a level of subjectivity still comes into play in whether a case was truly brought in good faith.
The Arizona Supreme Court only recently defined “not made in good faith” in the state’s sanctions law. And the State Bar is still in the process of mulling complaints against attorneys in key election contests and challenges brought in 2022.
The disciplinary matrix evolving between the judiciary and election lawsuits comes into sharper focus in assessing both the posture of ongoing election cases and in approaching a potentially litigious aftermath of the 2024 election.
Supreme Court Defines “Not Made in Good Faith”
State sanctions law allows courts to grant attorney fees if a party brings or defends a claim without substantial justification or solely or primarily for delay or harassment, unreasonably expands or delays proceedings, or engages in abuse of discovery. A separate provision of the statute construes “without substantial justification” to mean that the claim or defense is “groundless and is not made in good faith.”
The phrase “not made in good faith” went undefined in case law until May 2, when the state high court reversed more than $27,000 in sanctions levied against the Republican Party of Arizona.
