Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02303/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02303-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office was dismissed as a party in this litigation. (Doc. 37

at 6-7)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Chris Bohnert, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

J. Mitchell, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2303-PHX-LOA

ORDER

Defendants George Burke, Kevin Carr, and Maricopa County move the Court

to substitute Randall R. Garczynski and Brad K. Keogh as their counsel for Maria R.

Brandon and S. Lee White who will remain as counsel for Defendant Maricopa County

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.1

 (Doc. 101) Attorneys Garczynski and Keogh are employed with the

Maricopa County Office of General Litigation Services; attorneys Brandon and White with

the Maricopa County Office of Special Litigation Services. These are different law offices

with separate addresses.

Pursuant to LRCiv 83.3(b)(1), attorneys Garczynski’s and Keogh’s Application

for Substitution of Counsel indicates it “is made at the request of Maricopa County Risk

Management Department Manager, Peter Crowley, Maricopa County Manager’s Designee,

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LOA Document 102 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

for appointment of counsel pursuant to the County Risk Management Trust agreement.” (Id.

at 2) The Application bears the electronic signature of Peter Crowley, the so-called “client,”

who consents to the substitution of Garczynski and Keogh, of the Maricopa County Office

of General Litigation Services, as counsel for Defendants George Burke, Kevin Carr, and

Maricopa County. (Id. at 3)

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(b)(1) provides that:

(b) Withdrawal and Substitution: No attorney shall be permitted to withdraw

or be substituted as attorney of record in any pending action except by formal

written order of the Court, supported by written application setting forth the

reasons therefor together with the name, last known residence, and last known

telephone number of the client as follows:

(1) Where such application bears the written approval of the client, it

shall be accompanied by a proposed written order and may be presented

to the Court ex parte. The withdrawing attorney shall give prompt

notice of the entry of such order, together with the name, last known

residence and last known telephone number of the client, to all other

parties or their attorneys.

LRCiv 83.3(b)(1) (emphasis added).

Neither the Local Rules nor LRCiv 83.3 define the term “client.” “When

interpreting a statute [or local rule], [courts] must give words their ‘ordinary or natural’

meaning.’” United States v. TRW Rifle 7.62X51mm Caliber, 447 F.3d 686, 689 (9th Cir.

2006) (citations omitted)). Courts also “‘follow the common practice of consulting dictionary

definitions to clarify their ordinary meaning[ ].’” (Id.) (alteration in original). Webster’s

Online Dictionary defines “client” as, inter alia, “A person who seeks the advice of a

lawyer” or “One who consults a legal adviser[.]” The Court adopts the plain and ordinary

meaning of the term, “client,” as meaning the person or entity that counsel is representing in

this litigation, i.e., Defendants George Burke, Kevin Carr, and Maricopa County. 

The Court’s interpretation of the term “client” is also consistent with other

portions of LRCiv 83.3; the common understanding of the attorney-client privilege, Roehrs

v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 642 (D.Ariz. 2005); and Arizona’s well-established

law that an attorney owes his or her “client” an “‘undeviating and single allegiance’ whether

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LOA Document 102 Filed 08/30/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

the attorney is compensated by the insurer or the insured.” Parsons v. Continental Nat’l Am.

Group, 113 Ariz. 223, 227, 550 P.2d 94, 98 (Ariz. 1976) (discussing duty of insured’s

attorney who is compensated by insurer); Matter of Estate of Shano, 177 Ariz. 550, 869 P.2d

1203, 1210 (Az.Ct.App. 1993) (“A lawyer’s overriding duty of loyalty to a client is a basic

tenet of the attorney-client relationship. Inherent in this principle is the concept that no other

interest or consideration should be permitted to interfere with the lawyer’s loyalty to his

client.”) (emphasis added).

Having failed to comply with LRCiv 83.3(b)(1) by not providing the written

consents of their prospective clients, George Burke, Kevin Carr, and Maricopa County,

IT IS ORDERED that Randall R. Garczynski’s and Brad K. Keogh’s

Application for Substitution of Counsel, doc. 101, is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if substituted in as counsel in this

litigation, attorneys Randall R. Garczynski and Brad K. Keogh shall comply with the Rules

of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The District’s

Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at

www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

DATED this 30th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02303-LOA Document 102 Filed 08/30/10 Page 3 of 3