State Bar of Arizona Finds Probable Cause in Investigation of Kari Lake’s Attorney, He Expects to Be Disbarred

Rachel Alexander

The State Bar of Arizona is pursuing charges against Kari Lake’s attorney, Bryan Blehm, not merely investigating complaints filed by others. The Arizona Bar told him it has already found probable cause to continue its proceedings against him, which means it will likely result in disbarment. The charges accuse Blehm of violating five ethical rules frequently used as catchall rules to disbar attorneys.

Kari Lake told The Arizona Sun Times, “I will represent myself before I drop the case. [Attorney] Kurt [Olsen] and Bryan are heroes.”

The Arizona Bar asked Blehm (pictured above) to respond to alleged violations of five rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, which include the Arizona Bar’s Ethical Rules:

  • Rule 41(b)(3) To maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;
  • Rule 41(b)(7) To avoid engaging in unprofessional conduct and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness unless required by the duties to a client or the tribunal;
  • ER 8.2(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office;
  • ER 8.4(c) [not] engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
  • ER 8.4(d) [not] engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In May, the Arizona Supreme Court ordered $2,000 in sanctions against Lake’s attorneys for asserting in briefs that 35,000 ballots were inserted into the 2022 election at Runbeck Election Systems, Maricopa County’s third-party mail-in ballot processing company. Runbeck and the county are fighting a lawsuit from We the People AZ Alliance (WPAA) to turn over surveillance video from Runbeck’s loading dock where ballots are dropped off and picked up. Although WPAA stated it saw video surveillance at Runbeck, Maricopa County Deputy Attorney Joseph LaRue said during the hearing, “Maricopa County doesn’t even know if a security tape exists, let alone be under their control.”

Blehm hasn’t been afraid to discuss his concerns about election fraud on social media. An election attorney currently under investigation by the Arizona Bar told The Sun Times, “They are going after him based on his social media posts.”

In a video posted on X on November 5, Blehm stated, “Today is the third anniversary of the date America learned that the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies of national security for the United States of America overthrew the president of Donald J. Trump.”

He tied it to the Arizona Supreme Court, which set up a disinformation task force. “Why is it important?” Blehm asked. “Because the Central Intelligence Agency was working our judicial system to ensure that no claims of election fraud would be brought for the 2022 election.”

Yes, Every Kid

Blehm told The Sun Times that the initial charge from the Arizona Bar referenced a post on X Blehm made about the court’s disinformation task force on August 11. He said in part, “America, why did the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Justice feel the need to induce the Arizona Supreme Court and other state judicial systems to create misinformation boards in the run up to the 2020 election? The answer is simple, they were conspiring to do what they had been doing to other countries for decades, to overthrow the government of the United States of America and once they executed their plan, which they did, they needed to control the media and judicial narrative to convince the public that all was well.”

In his response to the Arizona Bar, Blehm said, “My tweet was aimed at raising awareness with respect to the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court creating a task force on disinformation. As is clear from a video interview he conducted following the creation of the task force, doing so was unorthodox. As an attorney, I believe raising awareness on the issue when I did is critical to restoring trust in our institutions, including the one I work within. If debate on what took place is hidden from public view, there can be no effective change or restoration.”

Blehm said on X, “They are going to take my bar license. I know that for saying this. What I want to know is why more attorneys are not as concerned as I am, because this isn’t just about your spending pool or the cleaning boy and you making sure you can pay your bills. It is fundamentally about whether or not we keep the system of government that we have.”

He urged attorneys to speak up. He said the Arizona Supreme Court was wrong in 2020 and that only one attorney dared to speak up in 2020. He said that his attorney is still under investigation by the Arizona Bar, which he said he believes is to silence him about the 2022 election.

The rules prohibiting attorneys from criticizing judges have come under criticism for violating the First Amendment. Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas was disbarred in 2012 after criticizing judges. Thomas helped draft a successful referendum in 2006 to prohibit bail for illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes. It passed with 77 percent voter approval, but judges at the Maricopa County Superior Court circulated a memo among themselves with instructions not to enforce it. Thomas held a press conference denouncing the move. The State Bar of Arizona investigated Thomas for violating Ethical Rule 8.2(a) – one of the rules Blehm is charged with violating.

Blehm’s pinned post on X since June 17 laid out how ballot harvesters collect ballots sent to bad addresses.

One of Blehm’s most recent posts, from November 2, compared a mayoral election overturned in Bridgeport, Connecticut, this month due to ballot box stuffing to then-Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, a longtime Democratic operative, in Arizona in 2020. Blehm said, “Looks exactly like what a @AdrianFontes did for Arizona in 2020. Of course, he was smart enough to use unmanned and unvideomonitored drop boxes.”

Blehm also represented the Cochise County Supervisors in various litigation matters. The supervisors attempted to conduct a hand count of the 2022 election and afterward delay certification of the results but were thwarted by threats from the Arizona Secretary of State’s office. A couple of weeks ago, Attorney General Kris Mayes initiated criminal proceedings against two of the supervisors.

Before that, Blehm represented the Cyber Ninjas, the third party contracted by the Arizona Senate to review the 2020 election. Due to stonewalling by the county, which refused to turn over documents and equipment for inspection, a full audit was never completed.

The 65 Project was formed to file bar complaints against conservative attorneys who filed election challenges on behalf of Republican candidates concerned about election fraud. It filed one against Olsen in February, on top of an earlier one against him in August 2022. In October 2022, they filed complaints against attorney and State Representative Alex Kolodin (R-Scottsdale) and Arizona attorneys Lee Miller, Dennis Wilenchik, and Jack Wilenchik.

Blehm addressed The 65 Project in his response to the Arizona Bar.

“[A]ll of this is taking place in an environment where groups like the 65 Project are working with members of large multinational law firms and those affiliated with the national security state to change the American Bar Association’s ethical rules regarding the brining of election challenges while making constant referrals of conservative attorneys to State Bars for violations of ethical rules,” he said. “The lawfare being waged against conservative attorneys, especially those involved in election related law will soon drain the bar associations of anyone willing to raise election challenges on behalf of conservative candidates. There will soon be a unibar where there is no dissent or contrary opinion on issues that matter, in this case our elections.”

He added, “We have the right to free speech and the right to challenge our institutions and those in power. Does the fact that I am an attorney limit my right to talk about court policy in a public manner? Does it limit my right to publicly express the opinion that our judicial institutions have taken a wrong turn? In 2019 and 2020, our judiciary took a wrong turn, and that detour has lasting implications until it is publicly recognized.”

– – –

Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter / X. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Bryan Blehm” by Bryan Blehm. 

 

 

Related posts

Comments