by Matthew Holloway | Feb 3, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Courts across Arizona will host statewide oath reaffirmation ceremonies for legal professionals on Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026, as part of Arizona Rule of Law Day, officials with the Arizona Supreme Court and county court systems announced.
The events, scheduled simultaneously in all 15 Arizona counties, will invite attorneys and other legal professionals to reaffirm their Oath of Admission in local courthouse ceremonies. The reaffirmation ceremonies represent a formal recommitment to upholding the rule of law and administering justice.
The statewide celebration coincides with several milestones in American history, including the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln’s birthday on Feb. 12, and Arizona’s 113th statehood anniversary on Feb. 14.
In announcing the ceremonies, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer said renewing the oath on these historic dates underscores the importance of the rule of law in American governance. “On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, lawyers across Arizona will come together to renew their oath — a reminder that the rule of law depends on the daily commitment of those sworn to uphold it,” Timmer said. “Reaffirming that oath on February 12, Lincoln’s Birthday, honors our nation’s founding ideals and our shared responsibility to serve justice with integrity and respect for the Constitution.”
Chief Justice Timmer’s remarks will be available for livestream and replay by courts statewide.
As of this report, the Arizona Judicial Branch provided scheduling and location information for ten of the state’s 15 counties.
- Apache County — 11:00 a.m.
Superior Court in Apache County, 70 W. 3rd St. S., St. Johns, AZ — Presiding Judge Michael Latham.
- Cochise County — 11:30 a.m.
Cochise County Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 1415 W. Melody Lane, Building G, Bisbee, AZ — Presiding Judge David Thorn.
- Coconino County — 11:30 a.m.
Superior Court in Coconino County, 200 N. San Francisco St., Flagstaff, AZ — Presiding Judge Ted S. Reed.
- Graham & Greenlee Counties — 12:00 p.m.
Superior Court in Graham County, 800 Main Street, Safford, AZ — Presiding Judge Michael Peterson and Presiding Judge Jeremy Ford.
- La Paz County — 10:00 a.m.
Superior Court in La Paz County, 1316 Kofa Ave., Parker, AZ — Presiding Judge Marcus Kelley.
- Maricopa County — 10:00 a.m.
State Courts Building, 1501 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ — Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer and Presiding Judge Pamela Gates. Livestream available.
- Mohave County — 12:00 p.m.
Mohave County Board of Supervisors Auditorium, 700 W. Beale St., Kingman, AZ — Presiding Judge Steve Moss.
- Pima County — 4:00 p.m.
Superior Court in Pima County, 110 W. Congress St., Tucson, AZ — Presiding Judge Danelle B. Liwski.
- Pinal County — 11:00 a.m.
Superior Court in Pinal County, 971 N. Jason Lopez Circle, Building A, Florence, AZ — Presiding Judge Joseph Georgini.
- Yavapai County — 4:00 p.m.
Superior Court in Yavapai County, Historic Courtroom, 120 S. Cortez St., Prescott, AZ — Presiding Judge John Napper.
The reaffirmation ceremonies aim to highlight the central role that legal professionals play in a justice system where laws are applied fairly and equally. The events are being organized jointly by the Arizona Supreme Court, State Bar of Arizona, and courts statewide.
Yavapai County Presiding Judge John Napper said in a statement, “The Yavapai County Superior Court is honored to host this event. It is always important to take time to remember why we do what we do. I encourage all legal professionals to attend and reaffirm their dedication to the rule of law and justice.”
Correction: A previous version of this story listed the incorrect names of the some of the presiding judges. The story has been updated with their correct names.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Warren Petersen | Oct 13, 2025 | Opinion
By Sen. Warren Petersen |
Recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board of Professional Responsibility recommended the most drastic punishment—disbarment—for former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark over his private strategic counsel in the aftermath of the 2020 election. This complaint was pushed by liberal activists, showing the lengths they will go to punish individuals by going after their livelihoods despite the clear lack of criminal, unlawful, or unethical behavior.
Even past Attorneys General – William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey – filed an amicus brief to push back against this “dangerous precedent,” writing, “Disciplining Mr. Clark would open the door to charging federal lawyers with ‘dishonesty’ or ‘attempted dishonesty’ for statements made during oral arguments, theories in briefs, legal advice provided in memoranda, or even (as here) proposals in privileged internal draft documents and discussions. Such acts of political retribution would severely discourage lawyers from serving in the federal government and invite extraordinary dysfunction as federal lawyers constrain the advice they provide for fear of political retaliation by the Bar.”
Over the past decade, radical politicians and interest groups have weaponized the key to attorneys’ livelihoods over partisan disputes, as in Clark’s matter before the DC Appeals Board. These parties seek to bring their vengeance on conservative attorneys’ bar licenses, which allow them to do their jobs and provide for themselves and their families. The obvious intent of these attacks—which echo other attacks from the left such as debanking conservatives, voting against company directors, and threatening doctors’ licenses—is to terrorize and chill any conservative voices.
Attorneys are one of the most important groups to protect from these attacks because their entire job is to open the courthouse doors for their clients; if they are chilled by the left from representing certain groups, those groups will lose their constitutional rights to access the courts and have their causes zealously argued or even to receive legal advice in the first place. Simply put, if our nation is to exist in a society where attorneys feel free to perform the services their clients expect and deserve, we must enhance the protections for their licenses – especially from outside agitators who have no business engaging in this interference.
Perhaps no greater example can be found of this abuse of our judicial system than after the 2020 election in Arizona, when two respected attorneys found themselves facing legal complaints for their work to represent the Arizona Republican Party, as political officials across the country worked to hash out challenges to the hotly contested General Election. The most insidious part of the claims against these men wasn’t simply about the filings, but that a New Jersey Congressman, U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell, led the official accusations.
Most people, regardless of their understanding of our legal system, can apply good-old-fashioned common sense to conclude that lawsuits must be waged between two sides with a substantial nexus to the alleged misconduct. Yet, Pascrell had no connection to the case. He filed a complaint against the Arizona-based attorneys, which was ultimately dismissed. However, the damage was done to these attorneys’ reputations because of their fight to beat the frivolous charges from an unconnected, unhinged, partisan Democrat thousands of miles away.
Whether you agree or disagree with the efforts to extend litigation in the courts in the aftermath of the 2020 election, it is uncontestable that the left and their allies grossly abused their powers to assault, undermine, and intimidate attorneys who were attempting to do their jobs within a legal system enshrined by the American Constitution and laws. These tactics were experienced across the country, as President Trump and Republican-affiliated attorneys – like Jeff Clark – found themselves not only defending their clients but their livelihoods against increasingly personal and vicious attacks – from parties that, again, had no direct interest or tie to the case.
This reality was also seen more recently in the State of Montana, where dozens of charges were leveled against the Attorney General, the honorable and respected Austin Knudsen. The allegations were, in part, brought against Montana’s Attorney General for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize justices on the state’s Supreme Court as he worked to execute his constitutionally appropriated responsibilities to the people and legislature. Again, what was most egregious about this case was that one of the earliest steps was an ethical complaint being lodged by a California-based attorney – hundreds of miles away from the action. Because of this complaint, Attorney General Knudsen is now fighting a serious suspension that could complicate his abilities to represent Montanans.
These cases, and plenty more, are why I have been working on legislation in Arizona to protect well-meaning, law-abiding, and ethical attorneys from fear of reprisal from outside radical left agitators. If eventually passed and signed into law, the bill would mandate [is it now law now? – no] that the State Bar of Arizona and the Supreme Court immediately dismiss all complaints against attorneys, where the complainant does not have an attorney-client relationship with the attorney or another substantial nexus to the attorney’s alleged violation or conduct, and where it is clear that the complaint is simply a difference of political opinion. In addition, I collaborated with the Arizona Supreme Court to change its rule that had allowed this persecution to take place. This reform is necessary for many good conservatives who deserve to work their profession without fear of political persecution. I’m grateful that the court made the right decision to strike the balance of protecting the public from bad attorneys while defending good attorneys from frivolous complaints.
If the events of the past decade, as our nation becomes more politically polarized, have taught us anything, it is that we must guard the legal profession to ensure that bad actors are not permitted to chase away good attorneys who are committed to doing their jobs. Not everyone will agree with the cases those attorneys assume — and that’s okay. Our nation’s judicial system, which allows parties to peacefully work out their disagreements, is part of what makes our nation the envy of the entire world. We should resolve to defend this proud institution from nefarious agitators who must not be allowed to interfere with or manipulate our hallowed judicial system.
Warren Petersen is the President of the Arizona State Senate and represents Legislative District 14.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jun 10, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
We all know it’s been a rough start for Governor Katie Hobbs as Arizona’s Chief Executive. Along with high-profile staff exits and breaking the veto record after killing the bipartisan “Tamale Bill,” Hobbs alienated many Democrats when she signed the budget sent to her by the Republican-led legislature.
Not to be outdone, Attorney General Kris Mayes has come along since taking office with one clear message to Hobbs: “Hold my Bud Light.”
Mayes has been occupying the AG office for a couple of months, and she has already figured out a way to abuse her power and violate her attorney client obligations. All driven by her desire for headlines and trying to claim the mantle as top Democrat demagogue in the state.
Her antics began in April when she decided it was a good idea to threaten action against the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 10, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona attorneys may no longer have to have membership within the State Bar of Arizona in order to practice law in the state. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill prohibiting the Arizona Supreme Court from requiring attorneys to have any organization membership in order to become or remain a licensed attorney. Like the bill’s passage in the Senate, the bill passed along party lines in committee.
State Senator Vince Leach (R-Tucson), the bill sponsor, shared that Attorney General Mark Brnovich had to hire an attorney to litigate a case because his attorneys were under State Bar investigation due to complaints from Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. Leach said that the secretary of state was “weaponizing a tool within the legal system.” However, he noted that those 12 bar complaints disappeared after he introduced the bill.
Leach added that many attorneys who wanted to speak on the bill didn’t show up because they were afraid of upsetting the status quo.
“They won’t come here because the State Bar, which is designed to protect the industry, and — if this is a word, if it’s not a word, I’m still going to say it — lawyering to look out for the good of the legal profession. You have members that are forced to pay $500-and-some-odd, don’t want to come here and say ‘Yeah there’s a problem with the bar,’” said Leach.
Leach encouraged the committee to view the State Bar as a corporation, and to question their practices and lobbying activities.
State Representative Neal Carter (R-Queen Creek) asked Leach if union membership was required for the practice of other professions in the state, to which Leach replied no — Arizona is a right to work state.
State Bar of Arizona President Jennifer Rebholz expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that the Arizona Supreme Court should have its decision to require bar membership respected as a matter of separation of powers. The representative insisted that the state bar wasn’t a union, but rather a conduit for the will and disciplinary authority of the supreme court.
Carter recounted the history behind state bars, pointing to the feudalist systems which required a state bar of sorts to act as an intermediary between the courts and the people. He expressed concern about the fact that attorneys didn’t testify on the bill out of fear of retaliation from the State Bar.
“It seems to me the whole system was borne out of a kind of restricting access idea and that today it drives up cost for legal services, so that those who need it the most — indigent people, people accused of crimes and so on, particularly adversely affects minorities and others than those who have the money to pay for lawyers because it drives up costs,” said Carter. “I also think it makes it harder for those people to join the profession themselves. It really is a sort of anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equality, anti-access to justice system.”
State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley) insisted that individuals weaponize the bar and that it should function more as a service organization, not a labor union. State Representative Jacqueline Parker (R-Mesa) added that the State Bar was far from unbiased.
In their opposition, committee Democrats concurred with Rebholz’s perspective that the State Bar was crucial to the separation of powers.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.