In the Matter of Daniel R Raynak

• Court: Arizona Supreme Court
• Decided: November 17, 2020
• Docket: SB-19-0053-AP
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

In the Matter of a Member of the ) Arizona Supreme Court State Bar of Arizona ) No. SB-19-0053-AP ) DANIEL R. RAYNAK, ) Office of the Presiding Attorney No. 10098 ) Disciplinary Judge ) No. PDJ20189071 Respondent. ) __________________________________) FILED 11/17/2020

DECISION ORDER

Respondent Daniel R. Raynak appeals the Hearing Panel’s June 6,

2019 Decision and Order Imposing Sanction. The Panel considered

twenty charges of unethical conduct arising out of Respondent’s

representation of one client in a six-month capital murder trial.

The Panel found twelve violations and found eight other charges

unproven. As a sanction, the Panel imposed a six-month suspension

from the practice of law without conditions. This Court stayed the

Panel’s decision, subject to certain conditions. Raynak v. O’Neil

and State Bar of Arizona, CV-19-0189-SA.

The Court en banc has considered the record in this case, as

well as the briefs of the Respondent, and the State Bar, and Amici

Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the Arizona Capital

Representation Project. Upon consideration of these matters,

IT IS ORDERED affirming the Panel’s finding of the following

four violations: Allegation Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 20.

Specifically, as to Allegation Nos. 4, 7 and 8, reasonable

evidence supports the Panel’s conclusion that Respondent violated ERs Arizona Supreme Court Case No. SB-19-0053-AP Page 2 of 5

3.1, 3.4(e) and 8.4(c). As to Allegation No. 20, reasonable evidence

supports the Panel’s conclusion that, together with other violations,

Respondent violated ER 8.4(d).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Panel’s findings as to

Allegation Nos. 1-3, 6, 9, 13, 14 and 19. Reasonable evidence does

not support these allegations.

In imposing sanctions, the Court is to consider (a) the duty

violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual

injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (d) the existence of

aggravating or mitigating factors. See In re Alexander, 232 Ariz. 13

¶ 49; see also ABA Standard 3.0.

With respect to the duties violated, the evidence at the

disciplinary hearing established that Respondent violated ERs 3.1,

3.4(e), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) by seeking an order precluding the

introduction of certain parts of co-defendant Ashley Buckman’s

statements and then impermissibly suggesting to the jury that the

prosecutors were hiding “the truth” from them by not mentioning

Buckman’s statements.

As to Respondent’s mental state, the Court concludes that his

violations were calculated and intentional. Although Respondent

claimed that he did not interpret the evidentiary ruling to be a

prohibition on either party’s ability to discuss Buckman’s statements

during closing argument, this contention was inconsistent with the

court’s order and email to counsel. Thus, despite the trial court’s Arizona Supreme Court Case No. SB-19-0053-AP Page 3 of 5

ruling, Respondent repeatedly misled the jury by suggesting that the

prosecutors were hiding evidence.

Next, we conclude Respondent’s misconduct resulted in potential

injury. “A lawyer's conduct violates ER 8.4(d) if it causes injury

or potential injury.” Matter of Martinez, 248 Ariz. 458, 467 ¶ 33

(2020). Here, although the trial court issued a curative instruction,

Respondent misled the jury by arguing that the prosecution did not

want it to hear about Buckman’s statements.

Finally, the Court affirms the aggravating factors found by the

Panel. Additionally, the Court finds two mitigating factors:

Respondent’s substantial experience handling the most difficult of

criminal cases and the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive.

Standard 9.32(b) and (g).

IT IS ORDERED vacating the Panel’s sanction of suspension and

imposing a sanction of reprimand.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED placing Respondent on probation for one

year from the date of the entry of this order under the following

terms and conditions:

1. During the period of probation, Respondent is to obtain six

hours of continuing legal education in courtroom professionalism in

addition to his annual requirement.

2. Respondent must practice under the supervision of a practice

monitor during the period of probation. Within ten business days of

the date of this order, Respondent will provide Bar counsel with a Arizona Supreme Court Case No. SB-19-0053-AP Page 4 of 5

new letter from a member of the Arizona State Bar who has been in

good standing for at least 15 years indicating that member’s

agreement to serve as a practice monitor under the terms of this

order. The practice monitor will confer regularly with Respondent to

ensure he is maintaining proper professionalism in his written and

oral advocacy. In the letter, the practice monitor must also

acknowledge the practice monitor’s obligations to comply with ER 8.3

by immediately reporting professional misconduct to Bar counsel, and

the practice monitor must agree to notify State Bar counsel if

practice monitor terminates the agreement with Respondent. Any costs

incurred shall be at Respondent’s expense.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay costs and expenses of

the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with Rule 60(b), Ariz. R.

Sup. Ct.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED terminating the stay and the conditions

set forth in the order entered October 29, 2019 in Raynak v. O’Neil

Justice Montgomery did not participate in the determination of

this matter.

DATED this 17th day of November 2020.

______/s/_____________________ ROBERT BRUTINEL Chief Justice Arizona Supreme Court Case No. SB-19-0053-AP Page 5 of 5

TO:

Daniel R Raynak James J Belanger David E Wood Brandi Ensign Jared G Keenan David J Euchner Timothy J Agan Amy Armstrong Emily Skinner Sandra Montoya Maret Vessella Don Lewis Beth Stephenson Mary Pieper Raziel Atienza Lexis Nexis