Key Points

• Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson’s policy advisor was fired for insubordination related to a colleague’s harassment complaint

• The ACC’s disciplinary report and State Bar records tell different stories about the complainant’s law license

• Critics say Chair Nick Myers’ social media comments obscure the facts surrounding the employee’s Bar suspension

Critics of the Arizona Corporation Commission are questioning how the agency handled the firing of Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson’s policy advisor, arguing that the commission’s account glosses over the reasons the State Bar suspended a colleague’s law license. 

ACC Executive Director Doug Clark terminated Laurie Woodall for insubordination in October after an unnamed employee in the commission’s legal division filed a complaint alleging a pattern of workplace harassment. A disciplinary report obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times through a public records request stated that Woodall repeatedly challenged the hiring of the employee, whose law license had been suspended in 2015. Woodall was ultimately fired after refusing to participate in an interview with the outside attorney investigating the complaint. 

The dispute has since expanded beyond Woodall’s conduct to the circumstances surrounding the attorney’s suspension — and whether ACC Chair Nick Myers accurately described them. A Capitol Times review of Woodall’s disciplinary report and the underlying State Bar records found differing accounts of the attorney’s disciplinary history, raising questions about Myers’ public defense of the commission’s handling of the matter.

“The commission appears to be focused on justifying the termination of a policy advisor in an unconventional manner versus investigating the reason a 40-plus-year professional complained in the first place,” said Diane Brown, the executive director of the Arizona Public Interest Research Group. 

The Capitol Times is not naming the employee who filed the complaint to protect his privacy. His name is redacted in the disciplinary report on Woodall’s termination.

State Bar records detail client harm

According to the disciplinary report, the employee was upfront about his suspension and his reinstatement to the Bar during the ACC hiring process.  At least one ACC employee reviewed the Bar report on his suspension. 

In his interview with Michael Zoldan, the employment attorney investigating the complaint against Woodall, the employee attributed his professional misconduct to a serious illness.

“[The employee] reported a serious illness that began around 2010, worsened over several years, and progressively impaired him; that as it worsened, he stopped taking new cases and refunded fees; that he did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding at the time…,” Zoldan wrote. 

The State Bar’s disciplinary findings, however, concluded that the employee had abandoned three clients between 2013 and 2014, resulting in financial harm to two of them. In one case, the attorney held money in his trust account for an elderly woman living in an assisted living facility, but failed to make timely payments for her care, according to the presiding disciplinary judge. After the payments stopped, the woman’s daughter hired another attorney to file a Bar complaint. 

The judge also found the employee’s explanation of his illness to be lacking, and noted the employee managed to participate in a trial for another client at the same time he claimed to be dealing with his illness.

“It is not clear to us what health issues [the employee] had as he made no disclosure and with the exception of [a sealed health record], we have nothing but his own self-serving statements,” the judge wrote. “His single exhibit consisted of an evaluation based on his statements to the physician.”

The employee was ordered to pay $6,277 in restitution to two separate clients and had his license suspended in 2015. His license was reinstated in 2020 with a probationary period that ended in 2022. 

ACC struggles to recruit attorneys

Commission employees interviewed by Zoldan as part of the investigation into Woodall defended hiring the employee despite the suspension. Several employees noted that the ACC has struggled to retain attorneys to staff its legal division. One observed that “the pay range matches what associates earn out of law school,” and another said, “the applicant pool was thin.”

It’s a familiar commission refrain. In 2024, the commission told the governor’s office that it sees an average of 45 employee resignations per year. In 2023, it reported 36 vacant staff positions.

But according to Zoldan’s report, Woodall told fellow ACC staff members that the employee should not have been hired regardless of the staffing struggles.  

“…[I]n the weeks after [the employee] started work, Ms. Woodall repeatedly and without invitation raised [the employee’s] suspension with the Executive Director, the General Counsel, and Legal Division staff,” Zoldan wrote. “She said he should never have been hired, that the hire was an embarrassment and a stain on the Commission and that it has to be fixed.”

The dispute over Woodall’s termination spilled over to social media after Autumn Johnson, an attorney who frequently represents solar energy clients at the Commission, questioned why the ACC hired an attorney who had previously been disciplined by the State Bar.

“… [Y]ou don’t get suspended by the State Bar for 5 years followed by a 2-year probation because you’re ill,” Johnson wrote on X.

Myers responded to Johnson, arguing she was opining without knowing the full story. 

“Please stop trying to spread misinformation and stick with what is in the report,” Myers wrote. “…We had an employee issue, and we’ve cleaned it up. This is not rocket science.”

Márquez Peterson told the Capitol Times that she will not comment on the disciplinary report or Woodall’s termination while the ACC seeks an independent counsel’s opinion on the firing. 

Brown criticized Myers’ social media comments, arguing he provided misinformation related to the employee’s Bar suspension.

“The reasons for the previous suspension of a newly hired attorney at the Commission went beyond sickness,” Brown said. “Either the chairman knew that and is obscuring the facts, or the legal division director and the executive director did not adequately brief him — I’m not sure which is worse.”