The State Bar of Arizona will not pursue an investigation into the billing practices of former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley that was urged by a top deputy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
That news was released Jan. 2, and Romley said he believes the filing may be political payback from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for his public endorsement of Democrat Dan Saban, who will challenge Arpaio in the election for sheriff in 2008.
“I cannot draw any conclusions, but I’ll say it’s curious,” Romley said. “Arpaio hasn’t been exactly happy with me. Many people have called me and told me he’s very upset I’m supporting his opponent.”
On Oct. 31, 2007, Maricopa County Sheriff Chief Deputy David Hendershott asked the legal group to look into complaints that Romley had overcharged Pinal County for his work as a special prosecutor in 2006 and to refer the case to an “appropriate” prosecutorial agency.
Romley was contracted in Jan. 2006 to investigate former Pinal County Manager Stanley Griffis, who pleaded guilty to six felonies and was sentenced in May 2007 by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Thomas O’Toole to three-and-a-half years in prison for stealing more than $400,000 from a county transportation fund.
In his filing to the State Bar, Hendershott referred to conversations about Romley’s billing practices he had in 2006 with former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods and attorney Rob Carey, who served as a chief assistant attorney general for a majority of Woods’ tenure.
Hendershott’s filing with the State Bar referred to conversations about Romley’s billing practices he had had in 2006 with former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods and attorney Rob Carey, who served as a chief assistant attorney general for a majority of Woods’ tenure.
Hendershott claimed Carey knew of several sources willing to attest that Romley spent “sitting at his desk for hours doing nothing day after day” and had “submitted fraudulent bills for his work.”
But the State Bar was not swayed into action, according to a Dec. 27 letter sent to Arpaio’s chief deputy, noting the allegations were based on one-year-old relayed information.
The letter also noted that one individual identified by Hendershott and contacted by the bar association had no first-hand knowledge of Romley’s work or his billing practices, and that he was reluctant to identify those who had made claims against Romley.
“At present, your complaint states bare accusations or suspicions,” State Bar Counsel Ariel Worth wrote. “Without supporting facts or evidence, such allegations are insufficient to start an investigation.”
Romley defended his billing by saying outsiders not privy to details of the Griffis case were not in a position to level accusations about billing since they are not familiar with the workload, or how much money was charged the county since many of the records are still sealed.
He estimated that he has received $200,000 for investigating and prosecuting the “extraordinarily complex” case against Griffis, who defrauded a county transportation fund and redirected other money into his possession.
“It was a good rate,” said Romley. He said the costs of the investigation will be recovered as part of Griffis’ $640,000 restitution requirement.
Arpaio emphatically denied the filing was politically motivated and lambasted Romley, a Republican, for endorsing a Democrat over a fellow Republican.
“That’s typical Romley, who has no status anyway in this county anymore,” said Arpaio, who left open the possibility that his office could itself investigate Romley’s billing.
He points out that Hendershott merely passed information conveyed by Woods and Carey, a fact reiterated by MCSO Chief Deputy of Detention Jack MacIntyre, who accused Romley of holding an “enormous personal hatred of Arpaio” out of jealously.
Both Woods and Carey, who were investigated in the 1990’s by Romley for the handling of funds earmarked for student scholarships, added background to claims in Hendershott’s dismissed complaint.
Hendershott claimed Woods said in Sept. 2006 that it was inconceivable Romley could have “obtained the level of charges” that he had billed the county for his work at the time. But when asked by the ~Arizona Capitol Times~, Woods would not confirm whether he had said that to Hendershott.
Woods also said he had no knowledge of the complaint to the State Bar of Arizona, or Romley’s billing practices, but that Carey “was of the opinion that the amount seemed high.”
“I was not interested in this myself,” the former attorney general said. “I just put these two (Carey and Hendershott) together to talk.”
Carey said he had met with Hendershott in hopes of furthering a client’s investigation into municipal police departments, and to assist a partner’s inquiry into what he described as Pinal County’s decision to give Romley the Griffis’ investigation without seeking other bidders.
Carey said the discussion about over-billing the county was only “political banter,” during the meeting. He said his partner did submit public records requests in Pinal County but the requests were limited to the procurement process only.
“I was not trying to assess or ascertain whether Mr. Romley over-billed the county or not,” he said. “And I told that to the State Bar investigator.”
While the request for the investigation into Romley was dropped, an internally generated State Bar of Arizona inquiry against his successor, Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas, is still active.
The organization also is looking into Dennis Wilenchik, a private attorney contracted by Thomas to serve as a special prosecutor. The attorney handled, among other matters, an unsuccessful attempt to prevent Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Ryan from hearing cases presented by Thomas’ office.
Thomas accused Ryan of issuing “questionable rulings” and displaying hostility to his deputy prosecutors.
Though exact details of the investigations cannot be revealed without further legal action, the inquiries were confirmed by State Bar of Arizona President Dan McAuliffe days after the body released an Oct. 5 press release “opposing public attacks on the judiciary.”
The announcement directly suggested the “right way” to challenge judges’ actions is “through the appellate courts or the Commission on Judicial Conduct — not through the media.”
In response to the statement, a spokesman with the county attorney’s office defended the decision and the right to publicly single out Ryan for criticism.
“In our judgment, we haven’t done anything at all in violation of any rules of ethical procedures,” spokesman Barnett Lotstein said in October. “Mr. Thomas and our lawyers have the First Amendment right to express their opinion, and judges aren’t above criticism.”