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