EASIEST & BRIEFEST EXAMPLE OF THE BIAS, DISORTIONS & INACCURACIES IN KAREN CLARK’S (KC) (THE “ETHICS” ATTORNEY) BAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST JM.
KC alleges that JM had affairs with Jennifer Wood and Katie Wick, had sexualized conversations with dismissed PP2 juror #3 (Melissa Garcia), and that he “sexually harassed” Sheree Ruiz (with Jennifer Wood, the “Trial Divas”). Perhaps because KC knew she lacks direct evidence of any of these allegations, she tried to support her narrative that JM is a serial and long-term sexual user & abuser of women by selectively quoting from JM’s personnel files she compelled MCAO (Maricopa County Attorneys Office) to turn over.
-------------------------------------
Here is what KC wrote in her (February 2018) appeal of the Bar’s dismissal of her Bar Complaint:
“MCAO has disciplined (JM) before for improper sexual conduct. He was first given a warning and counseled by his superiors for improper actions towards female staff. The warning(...) ‘his judgment on matters relating to his conduct and personal relationships with other employees, particularly some females, has been called into question on a couple of occasions.’
He was counseled and told that his conduct with female employees was inappropriate for a professional law office. He was told that his conduct appeared unprofessional and was inappropriate in the office.”
The following year, (JM) repeated his misconduct by making an inappropriate sexual remark towards a female attorney in his office. The conduct was reported (and it was determined) that the warning given to him the previous year had not been sufficient.
They took the next step by issuing him a formal written reprimand that was placed in his personal file. His supervisor stated that “it is now time that this behavior cease once and for all. “The supervisor concluded “there will always be potential for problems until JM can exercise the proper judgment, attitude and approach towards dealing with others, especially in a professional setting. When he understands why these things are not appropriate, he will no longer be in danger of doing them.”
---------------------------
REALITY CHECK.
Unforgivably, really, IMO, the related portion of JM’s personnel file has been made public by KC’s attaching it as an appendix to her 2018 appeal.
The selective excerpts KC used are from 2 separate documents in JM’s personnel file. The first doc is indeed a letter of reprimand, written by the supervisor of JM’s supervisor. The basis for the reprimand is the 2nd incident below, that had occurred in 1991.
The second doc is attached to the letter of reprimand and is a portion of JM’s (otherwise absolutely glowing) annual performance review.
Here, quoted from those docs, is what ethics attorney Karen Clark didn’t include in her excerpts about JM’s “improper sexual conduct” at MCAO:
JM’s supervisor, in JM’s performance review:
“In November 1990, Juan was counselled regarding the amount of time he spent with female employees in his office. He was told that the appearance created by the extent of the contact he was having was inappropriate for a professional law office. He was also told that since the female employees were secretaries, it was interfering with their productivity, and thus it was adversely affecting other attorneys as well.
After being told such contact appeared unprofessional and inappropriate in the office, Juan immediately acted to stop it.”
(…)
“Another cause for counselling arose in March 1991, when a female employee was offended by a remark Juan made to her. It is unlikely that any comment he made was intended to offend anyone, however, Juan’s judgment in using words that could, even remotely, offend someone was not good.”
“Juan needs to exercise good judgement and be sensitive to the fact that there are always unintended possible consequences of remarks that are not thought out, or that are inappropriate in a professional environment.
I believe that Juan will be successful in modifying his conduct in regards to specific problem areas. I am also hopeful that Juan will learn from these experiences and go beyond mere modification of conduct. There will always be potential for problems until JM can exercise the proper judgment, attitude and approach towards dealing with others, especially in a professional setting. When he understands why these things are not appropriate, he will no longer be in danger of doing them.”
---------
So….and, really??
The only “dirt” KC could mine from JM’s decades of work at MCAO is that 28 years ago JM spent too much time talking with secretaries, and that 27 years ago he said something to a female attorney that she found offensive, even though JM’s supervisor doubted that JM intended to be offensive.
And… this is what she offers as “evidence” that JM has a long history of “improper sexual conduct.”
KC alleges that JM had affairs with Jennifer Wood and Katie Wick, had sexualized conversations with dismissed PP2 juror #3 (Melissa Garcia), and that he “sexually harassed” Sheree Ruiz (with Jennifer Wood, the “Trial Divas”). Perhaps because KC knew she lacks direct evidence of any of these allegations, she tried to support her narrative that JM is a serial and long-term sexual user & abuser of women by selectively quoting from JM’s personnel files she compelled MCAO (Maricopa County Attorneys Office) to turn over.
-------------------------------------
Here is what KC wrote in her (February 2018) appeal of the Bar’s dismissal of her Bar Complaint:
“MCAO has disciplined (JM) before for improper sexual conduct. He was first given a warning and counseled by his superiors for improper actions towards female staff. The warning(...) ‘his judgment on matters relating to his conduct and personal relationships with other employees, particularly some females, has been called into question on a couple of occasions.’
He was counseled and told that his conduct with female employees was inappropriate for a professional law office. He was told that his conduct appeared unprofessional and was inappropriate in the office.”
The following year, (JM) repeated his misconduct by making an inappropriate sexual remark towards a female attorney in his office. The conduct was reported (and it was determined) that the warning given to him the previous year had not been sufficient.
They took the next step by issuing him a formal written reprimand that was placed in his personal file. His supervisor stated that “it is now time that this behavior cease once and for all. “The supervisor concluded “there will always be potential for problems until JM can exercise the proper judgment, attitude and approach towards dealing with others, especially in a professional setting. When he understands why these things are not appropriate, he will no longer be in danger of doing them.”
---------------------------
REALITY CHECK.
Unforgivably, really, IMO, the related portion of JM’s personnel file has been made public by KC’s attaching it as an appendix to her 2018 appeal.
The selective excerpts KC used are from 2 separate documents in JM’s personnel file. The first doc is indeed a letter of reprimand, written by the supervisor of JM’s supervisor. The basis for the reprimand is the 2nd incident below, that had occurred in 1991.
The second doc is attached to the letter of reprimand and is a portion of JM’s (otherwise absolutely glowing) annual performance review.
Here, quoted from those docs, is what ethics attorney Karen Clark didn’t include in her excerpts about JM’s “improper sexual conduct” at MCAO:
JM’s supervisor, in JM’s performance review:
“In November 1990, Juan was counselled regarding the amount of time he spent with female employees in his office. He was told that the appearance created by the extent of the contact he was having was inappropriate for a professional law office. He was also told that since the female employees were secretaries, it was interfering with their productivity, and thus it was adversely affecting other attorneys as well.
After being told such contact appeared unprofessional and inappropriate in the office, Juan immediately acted to stop it.”
(…)
“Another cause for counselling arose in March 1991, when a female employee was offended by a remark Juan made to her. It is unlikely that any comment he made was intended to offend anyone, however, Juan’s judgment in using words that could, even remotely, offend someone was not good.”
“Juan needs to exercise good judgement and be sensitive to the fact that there are always unintended possible consequences of remarks that are not thought out, or that are inappropriate in a professional environment.
I believe that Juan will be successful in modifying his conduct in regards to specific problem areas. I am also hopeful that Juan will learn from these experiences and go beyond mere modification of conduct. There will always be potential for problems until JM can exercise the proper judgment, attitude and approach towards dealing with others, especially in a professional setting. When he understands why these things are not appropriate, he will no longer be in danger of doing them.”
---------
So….and, really??
The only “dirt” KC could mine from JM’s decades of work at MCAO is that 28 years ago JM spent too much time talking with secretaries, and that 27 years ago he said something to a female attorney that she found offensive, even though JM’s supervisor doubted that JM intended to be offensive.
And… this is what she offers as “evidence” that JM has a long history of “improper sexual conduct.”