Ms. Fran McCarroll Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Maricopa County Clerk of the Board 301 W.

Jefferson, 10th floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Re: Notice of Claim A.R.S. 12-821.01 May 11, 2012

This is my formal Notice of Claim under A.R.S. 12-821.01 against the following public entities and employees: Maricopa County, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, Supervisor Don Stapley, Supervisor Andrew Kunasek, Supervisor Max Wilson, Supervisor Fulton Brock, former County Manager David Smith, Maricopa County Risk Management, Acting Director of Risk Management Brad Keogh, Maricopa County Attorneys Office, and Maricopa County Bill Montgomery. This claim is being brought as a result of the County refusing to continue to fund legal representation for me in my appeal of a Bar disciplinary proceeding arising out of duties performed while I was a Deputy County Attorney. On April 16, 2012, my former legal counsel Scott Zwillinger received a notice from Brad Keogh, Acting Director of Risk Management, stating that the County would not fund my appeal of the Hearing Panels Opinion recommending suspension of my Bar license for six months and one day. On April 17, 2011, County Attorney Bill Montgomery declared that the Board of Supervisors was within its authority to decide not to authorize "monies to cover attorney fees for the appeals of the Bar disciplinary cases." Your decision to deny me counsel for an appeal and other related proceedings is at best arbitrary and capricious and at worst intentionally punitive in that it was made with no warning and at a time when I was the most vulnerable, immediately after the decision had been handed down and only a week before I needed to file a Notice of Appeal. The Hearing Panel suspended my Bar license due to my role assisting former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas in his efforts to prosecute certain county officials. I was never one of Thomass high-level advisors, and was not kept informed of what he was doing throughout the years I worked there other than what I read in the newspapers. Mr. Thomas came to me in December 2009 and asked me to help with some research and writing on a racketeering case that he had already filed against these officials. My role basically consisted of some research and writing as directed by my supervisor (who was not prosecuted by the Bar, even though he performed substantially more work on the suit and instructed me on what to do), then dismissing the case as instructed. For this the Hearing Panel suspended my Bar license for six months plus one day. Section 2.2.2.7 of The Declaration of Trust for Maricopa County, Arizona, Self-Insured Risk Trust Fund (the Trust) states that the County shall provide to its employees, as I was at the relevant time, [t]he reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs arising out of a disciplinary or licensure proceeding before a professional regulatory body, upon written approval from trustees prior to payment. The County appears to take the position that since the Hearing Panels decision was so draconian, I fall outside of the coverage. The County maintains that Section 2.2.4 of the Trust excludes coverage for an employee if "his or her action or omission constituted bad faith, gross negligence, and/or willful and wanton misconduct, or other excluded conduct or circumstances ... in the conduct of his or her duties." However, based on my extremely limited role in the proceedings, I believe there is a very good possibility the Hearing Panels decision will be overturned or limited. The Hearing Panels decision suspending my license relied upon the assertion that I had also filed the racketeering complaint, which was a false assertion.

My former counsel was led to believe by Rocky Armfield from Risk Management that the County would pay for my appeal. I relied upon this assurance when I chose to turn down three different settlement agreements offered to me during the proceedings by Independent Bar Counsel, including just taking a few extra Continuing Legal Education courses. There was no reservation of rights clause in my former attorneys contract with the County. A former manager for Risk Management has said that not funding an appeal in a situation like mine would be unprecedented in the history of the County. Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. v. Pima County, 207 Ariz. 455 (Ariz. App. 2004) presented a similar situation, analyzing whether the County is responsible to pay the full legal costs of representation for a Deputy County Attorney in a Bar disciplinary proceeding. There, the court found that oral assurances outside of the Countys agreement with the Deputy County Attorneys counsel were admissible and should be reconciled with the counsels written contract if possible. In that case, the written contract called for a flat payment of $25,000 so the oral assurances could not be combined with the contract. That case can be distinguished from the situation here, since there was no fixed amount set in the contract for my legal representation. Now I have no legal counsel to adequately represent me in the appeal and am having to handle it myself. My bankruptcy law business has suffered greatly, since it is difficult to find clients or handle their affairs while I am working full time to represent myself pro se. The vast amount of negative media coverage has also devastated my business. I am requesting $67,000 that would be required to pay my former attorney to handle my appeal for two months, at the reduced rate of $200/hr he has been charging the County for my representation. Sincerely,

Rachel Alexander 5110 N. 44th St., Ste. 200L Phoenix, AZ 85018