Fact is we really don’t know why he was fired & we shouldn’t. It’s private & confidential. But I doubt realistically it was “for nothing” .
(...) Juan is only human. He is not infallible. Chances are he wasn’t fired because AZ DA office simply chose to end employment “at will”- which any employer can do if they decide to focus on the behavior of that employee, document infractions and move through their disciplinary process to termination anyway.
Unfortunately his behavior had something to do with it. Other lawyers filed complaints about Juan way before JA. If you note, the DA office DID move Juan through their disciplinary process....write ups, then suspension, then termination. And because an employer can fire someone “at will”, Juan will have an uphill battle appealing his dismissal, imo. (....)
To assume he had no blame in his termination is unrealistic.
IMO, this timeline (and some context) suggests what likely prompted JM's firing:
Early January, 2017: Karen Clark filed her sex sex sex Bar complaint against JM. Her allegations were all over the place, but the central underlying theme was that JM (unethically) used bloggers during the killer's trial, AND that his behavior was consistent with a larger pattern and history of unethical/inappropriate treatment of women, up to and including sexually harassing MCAO employees.
February 2018. The Bar dismissed Clark's sex sex sex complaint. Clark immediately appeals the decision, and cites additional "research" she's conducted since first filing the complaint. Some portion of that "research" seems to have involved scouting MCAO for dirt on JM.
March 2018. The Probable Cause committee reinstates Clark's sex sex sex complaint.
April 27, 2018. Bill Montgomery issues a formal reprimand to JM, allegedly following a rather thorough investigation of sexual harassment allegations. JM's salary is dinged and he's ordered to take a class on (best guess) sexual harassment in the workplace.
The Bar requests/orders that the investigative report be turned over to the Bar. Montgomery agrees to do so. Either Montgomery or Bar counsel instructs that the report and record of JM's discipline be sealed.
Michael Kiefer begins a (unsuccessful) months long campaign of pressure to force Montgomery to make the full record public. All that is made public are Clark's lurid accusations, which were leaked, not officially released by the Bar, as ongoing Bar investigations are supposed to be confidential.
March 1, 2019. The Probable Cause committee formally charges JM with several counts of ethical violations. One of the charges includes information that had to be taken directly from Montgomery's investigation and report, relating to JM's sexual harassment of "several" MCAO employees (short-term law clerks), between 2016-2017, iirc.
The Prob Cause's charges against JM are made public.
August 24, 2019. The Bar's Chief Disciplinary judge, William O'Neill issues a prelimary ruling on one portion of Clark's sex sex sex complaint. The ruling grants JM's motion for summary judgement on the MCAO sexual harassment charges.
JM argued, and O'Neill agreed, that the sexual harassment charges be dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction. Unlike in many other states, AZ's Code of Professional Conduct for attorneys (the ethics rule book) does not specifically include sexual harassment as an ethical violation. No rule, no jurisdiction.
September 5, 2019. Bill Montgomery is appointed to the AZ Supreme Court. His appointment was months in the making and VERY controversial. Multiple organizations fought against his appointment, including most of the groups that had joined/weighed in on the Bar's appeal of the dismissal by the Bar's Disciplinary committee of the defense attys Bar complaint against JM.
A few days before Montgomery's appointment is announced, Karen Clark strikes again. This time she files Bar charges against Montgomery too, accusing him of inadequate supervision of JM, and for violating ethical rules by allowing JM to write and publish his book.
The Bar wants NOTHING to do with the charges against Montgomery. They ask that the charges be reviewed by an AZSC special counsel. Request granted. (And there the matter still remains).
September 2019. The first interim County Attorney to replace Montgomery (and rather self-selected, from within MCAO) reassigns JM to the AutoTheft division. Her public explanation for the move was that it was to give JM time to prepare his defense for the Bar investigations he was facing. (THIS EXPLANATION MATTERS. NEXT POST.
).
January, 2020. Disciplinary Judge O'Neill formally dismisses the MCAO sexual harassment charges against JM, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. In other words, McNeill rules that how those charges were or should be handled is up to MCAO, not the Bar.
February 7, 2020. JM is put on paid administrative leave by the newly appointed interim County Attorney, Adell. No explanation is provided, but for
some unknown reason, given that details about the leave were supposed to be kept confidential (per MCAO spokesperson), the media was allowed to read the full 5 page letter to JM notifying him of the leave and to report about what they read.
A few days before JM is put on leave, word filters out that the Bar will file a complaint against Chief Disciplinary Judge O'Neill. The accusation? That he abused his power by granting JM's motion for summary judgement of the sexual harassment charges.
February 11, 2020. The Bar files a special petition to the AZSC accusing McNeill of abuse of power.
February 21, 2020. Adell/MCAO fires JM.
