Rachel Alexander Files Claim Vs Maricopa County for $67,000 -- the Cost of Legal Fees for Her Appeal of Law-License Suspension; Wilcox Wins $975,000 Settlement
Rachel Alexander, (right)has filed a claim against the county for $67,000 to cover the cost of appealing the suspension of her law license.
Rachel Alexander, acolyte of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, has filed a notice of claim against Maricopa County for $67,000 to cover the legal fees of the appeal of her law-license suspension.
Alexander, along with Thomas and former deputy county attorney Lisa Aubuchon, was disciplined for their bad ethics in a lengthy legal fight with county officials. Thomas and Aubuchon were disbarred, while Alexander had her license suspended for six months and a day.
Though the suspension went into effect yesterday, Alexander is also requesting a stay on that punishment until her appeal process is exhausted.
Aubuchon was granted a temporary stay on her disbarment until May 30, when the state Supreme Court will decide whether to stay the disbarment until Aubuchon's appeal is done.
Thomas, playing martyr, decided not to appeal his disbarment.
A week after the April 10 discipline order against the trio, the county Board of Supervisors decided not to pay for the legal fees for any appeal by Alexander or Aubuchon.
Alexander says in her notice of claim, released today by the county, that she was blind-sided by that decision and that her bankruptcy law firm has suffered as she's tried to handle the legal work for her appeal.
"The vast amount of negative media coverage has also devastated my business," she writes.
Bummer. But Alexander could hardly expect the news media to ignore her role in the discredited RICO suit against county players, the subsequent State Bar investigation, and her high-profile spanking by the Arizona Supreme Court's disciplinary panel.
She writes in the claim that she was led to believe by her former counsel, who was taking cues from County Risk Manager Rocky Armfield, that her appeal would be funded by the county. Relying on that advice, she turned down three separate offers for a settlement in the disciplinary matter, including one that would have required her only to take a few law classes.
We wonder why she didn't take that settlement. Surely, she couldn't have believed the disciplinary panel would let her off the hook for working on the crappy racketeering suit. Or maybe she still high on the punchbowl-full of Thomas' Kool-Aid she drank.
When she filed an amended complaint against the entire Board of Supervisors and others, she wrote: Even a cursory read of the proposed amended complaint will reveal that (the claims) are not frivolous and are brought in good faith to combat widespread corruption."
That was pure nonsense.