NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FEDERAL LAWYERS

10 Jan 24

Arizona DOJ Subpoena Defense Lawyers

| by

Last Updated on: 11th January 2024, 11:22 pm

Arizona DOJ Subpoenas Defense Lawyers: An Empathetic Look

The recent news about the Arizona Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoenaing criminal defense lawyers has raised some eyebrows in the legal community. As an empathetic human myself, I wanted to take a closer look and break things down for the average Joe.
Now I ain’t no fancy lawyer, but from my understanding, prosecutors don’t usually go around asking defense attorneys to hand over information about their clients. Some call it a violation of attorney-client privilege. But the DOJ claims they need this info to investigate some sorta fraud ring related to the prisons. They think some lawyers may be in cahoots.
Here’s the tea, sis. The Arizona DOJ is looking into a company called Milligan Lawless and Associates (MLA). This firm represents prisoners who file lawsuits against the state prison system for things like inadequate medical care, abuse, etc. Now don’t get me wrong — some of those lawsuits are legit. But prosecutors think some could be fraudulent to get money from the state.
And here’s the sketchy part — some MLA lawyers are former DOJ prosecutors. So they know how the system works. The DOJ has evidence that some lawyers at MLA may be coordinating with prisoners to file bogus lawsuits. Not cool, if true!
So back to the subpoenas. The DOJ hit up a bunch of MLA attorneys and demanded they hand over information on their prisoner clients, including:

  • Names and DOC numbers of prisoners
  • Copies of entire case files
  • Detailed billing records
  • Private client correspondence and call logs

Now, the DOJ says this info is essential to investigate fraud. But defense lawyers are shaking their heads like, hold up — you want us to violate attorney-client privilege and hand over confidential client info? I don’t think so, homie.
Some lawyers refused to comply with the subpoenas. They don’t think the DOJ has proven the info is necessary, or that a crime has even been committed. So the DOJ took them to court to try and enforce the subpoenas.
The judge was like, I hear you DOJ but let’s pump the brakes a little. He said he needs more proof that crimes occurred before letting prosecutors dig through client files and stuff. So he told the lawyers to hand over some records, but not others yet.
Both sides were kinda unhappy with that ruling. So now there’s gonna be more legal jousting in court to figure out what info has to be turned over.
In the meantime, defense lawyers statewide are feeling nervous about this case. They don’t want prosecutors poking around confidential client info on fishing expeditions. And prisoners don’t want their personal info spread all over court documents that anyone could see!
The Arizona Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers even filed a friend of the court brief saying these subpoenas could have a chilling effect and erode trust between lawyers and clients. They think it violates attorney-client privilege.
But the DOJ still feels it’s justified here based on evidence of possible fraud.
So what do y’all think? Should defense lawyers have to turn over info about possible criminal schemes, even if it violates client confidentiality? Or could these subpoenas discourage prisoners from confiding in their lawyers?
I can see both sides, ya know. The DOJ has a duty to investigate fraud, even if lawyers are involved. But we also want open communication between lawyers and their clients. And what if the clients are actually innocent, just trying to report abuse? It’s a tricky line to walk.
We’ll see what the judge decides as this case moves forward. But it’s got a lot of folks talking about ethics and attorney-client privilege. The defense lawyers aren’t going down without a fight, that’s for sure!
Let me know what you think, friends! Am I missing anything? What would you do if you were the judge? I’m open to other perspectives. Now let me grab my reading glasses real quick to check out these references at the bottom. My eyes ain’t what they used to be, lol. But I want to make sure I get my facts straight!

LEARN MORE  Criminal Tax Fraud in the Second Degree: NY Tax Law 1805

References