Alert!! — State Bar of Arizona
In related alerts, Kelly / Warner has discussed its concerns associated with individuals fraudulently obtaining court orders to remove information from the internet, as well as the exploitation of this concern by the firm’s detractors. These detractors, who include Richard “Rich” Gorman and Charles “Chuck” Rodrick, have gone to great lengths to put pressure on the State Bar of Arizona to pursue an investigation of Kelly Warner Law. These individuals have filed multiple bar complaints, published countless “media” articles about the firm (i.e. fake news), and sent numerous emails to the bar. See Rodrick’s Motion for Reconsideration, Ex A (Maricopa County Sup Ct. CV2016-05228). One of these individuals has even gone so far as to accuse the State Bar of Arizona of conspiring with Kelly / Warner. See https://www.barcomplaint.com/article-of-interest-copypaste-ok/arizona-state-bar-how-the-sham-really-works/
As anyone can see from doing a quick search of the internet, it appears these individuals are using the pending bar investigation as fodder for their smear campaign against the firm.
For reasons that remain uncertain, the State Bar of Arizona has decided to continue its investigation by filing a formal bar complaint against Aaron Kelly, Daniel Warner and Raees Mohamed.
Some might say….WOW…and jump to conclusions. However, Kelly Warner Law is pleased to have an opportunity to demonstrate publicly that no one at the firm has engaged in any wrongdoing.
Internet defamation attorneys cannot and will not be held to a higher standard of care than normal attorneys. After a quick reading of the ethical rules, the comments thereto, and a case filed by the Texas Attorney General against a reputation management company, it should be evident to any reasonable person that the old saying, “where there is smoke, there is fire” is not necessarily true in the digital age today.
“An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client’s behalf, and not assertions by the lawyer.” ER 3.3 cmt 3 (emphasis added).
“The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. [And] [a] lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact.” See ER 3.3 cmt 8. “[A] lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client . . . .” Id. Although the firm practices far within and from “the line,” the comments to the ethical rules indicate that “the line” extends rather far.
The Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the Solvera Group, Inc., a reputation management company, for engaging in a scheme to fraudulently remove information from the internet. In the complaint, the Texas Attorney General identified both the consumers and the attorneys as being victims who were misled by the reputation management company. See Complaint, ¶ 17.
We, at Kelly Warner Law, intend to vigorously defend against all allegations of wrongdoing.
And to all of our loyal clients, we thank you for your support and encouragement; please know that we will never stop fighting for you and defamation victims like you.
If you are contacted by alleged “reporters,” please let us know, by emailing us at firstname.lastname@example.org.