Arizona lawmaker disciplined for misconduct after 2020 election suits

PHOENIX — A state legislator who is a lawyer has been placed on probation for 18 months for his role in three lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 election and in filing suit against a Democratic state lawmaker for urging the FBI to investigate the activities of Republican lawmakers in and around the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin has to complete five legal programs, most of them relating to the ethical requirements for lawyers including one on the filing of “meritorious claims” and another on “fairness to opposing parties and counsel,” documents obtained from the State Bar of Arizona show.

In the consent order, the Scottsdale Republican representative also agreed to “commit no further violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.’’

He separately was formally admonished for violating those rules.

And Kolodin, elected to the state House in 2022, also has to pay nearly $2,700 to cover the costs and expenses of the State Bar in investigating him.

Kolodin told Capitol Media Services that he agreed to settle the complaints against him to “protect my team,” meaning the other lawyers in his office who worked on the cases “and give them the opportunity to put this matter behind them.” But Kolodin, who has taken on election cases for Republicans — including being one of the lawyers for Abe Hamadeh in his current bid to overturn his loss in the race for attorney general to Democrat Kris Mayes — said he is a victim here.

“It has been well documented that the people who filed these complaints are political activists,’’ he said. “It is unfortunate that the bar’s effort to keep lawyers honest is being gamed by political operatives.”

There is evidence that those who have challenged election results have found themselves under scrutiny by the organization which, along with the Arizona Supreme Court, regulates the conduct of attorneys.

That includes Bryan Blehm and Kurt Olson who are representing Republican Kari Lake in her ongoing effort to overturn her loss to Democrat Katie Hobbs.

At least part of that relates to the Arizona Supreme Court earlier this year slapping them with a $2,000 sanction after they claimed that the record “indisputedly” reflects that there were at least 35,563 early ballots illegally injected into the election system. Chief Justice Robert Brutinel said that was a lie.

But the disciplinary report by the Bar against Kolodin — the one that he agreed to sign — cites evidence that he pursued election cases with no merit.

Perhaps the biggest of these was what had been dubbed the “Kraken” lawsuit, a name given to it by Trump attorney Sidney Powell who has since pleaded guilty in Georgia to charges of election interference. Powell said she was going to “release the Kraken,” a mythical sea monster, with her claims that were so enormous that they would overturn the 2020 election.

Filed less than a month after the general election, the lawsuit filed in federal here court alleged “massive election fraud” that was done “for the purpose of illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to manufacture an election of Joe Biden . . . and down-ballot Democratic candidates.” It also sought to eliminate the mail ballots from the count or an order that Arizona’s electors “be directed to vote for President Trump.”

Kolodin, however, was the only attorney representing Trump on the lawsuit who actually is licensed to practice law in Arizona.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

After a hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa tossed the case with an often-scathing ruling.

She said what challengers were asking for was to disenfranchise millions of Arizonans. And Humetwa said that should include “clear and convincing facts” to support their claim that there was an “egregious range of conduct in Maricopa County and other counties ... at the direction of Arizona state election officials.”

But what she said was presented is “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence.”

“Plaintiffs append over 300 pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume,” the judge wrote.

“The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections,” Humetewa continued. “Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for the earning pleadings and procedure in federal court.”

The agreement by Kolodin to be disciplined also cites two other cases he filed in state court contesting the 2020 election, both of which were dismissed by the judges involved.

One involved a claim by a woman that she was given a Sharpie to complete her ballot and the ink bled through, causing her ballot to be rejected.

But Kolodin dismissed the claim after then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs told the court that the evidence is that Sharpies, specifically recommended by Maricopa County for their fast-drying ink that does not smear inside tabulators, do not invalidate ballots.

The other case, also filed by Kolodin for the same woman and another over the accuracy of ballot-counting equipment, also was dismissed.

Kolodin also was cited for his role as the attorney for Mark Finchem and Anthony Kern and Congressman Paul Gosar.

The lawsuit he filed alleged that Charlene Fernandez, then a Democratic state representative from Yuma, had damaged the three Republicans by sending a letter to federal law enforcement officials asking them to investigate whether any of the them were guilty of committing crimes in connection with the events around the Jan. 6, 2021 riot and breach of the U.S. Capitol. Finchem and Kern were in Washington for the event.

Yuma County Superior Court Judge Levi Gunderson tossed the case, saying it “was brought for an improper purpose, having been filed against a political opponent primarily for the purposes of harassment.” In fact, the judge said, the initial legal papers were less about legal grievances and more of a political screed.

“It very much appears that a significant portion of the contents of the original complaint and the first amended complaint were written for an audience other than the assigned trial judge,” Gunderson wrote. He then assessed the three Republicans $75,000 in legal fees to reimburse Fernandez but declined to impose a penalty on the lawyers.