Arizona Attorney Rick Poster Slammed Again By AZ State Bar ON PROBATION

View More Categories

Rick Poster has been reprimanded multiple times by the state bar and is now currently on probation. The most recent was Attorney Rick Poster's for failure to perform his most basic representation duties by not filing multiple required responses in a criminal case. (HE SEEMED TO FORGET TO REPRESENT HIS CLIENT)  If you are considering hiring Rick Poster to represent you in a criminal case you may want to read the most recent complaints about him ignoring his clients.,%20Rick%20D.%20018115%20PDJ-2017-9034.pdf

Other Complaints About Attorney  Rick Poster

16-0310 Disposition Summary

Respondent: Rick Poster

Bar No.: 018115

SB File Nos.: 16-0310 and 16-1013

PDJ No.: 2017-9034

By judgment and order dated April 3, 2017, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Rick D. Poster, Scottsdale, was reprimanded. Mr. Poster was also assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $1,203.30.

In Count One, Mr. Poster represented a client in a civil forfeiture matter involving allegations of money laundering and the sale/transportation of drugs while employed as a delivery person. Poster failed to adequately communicate with and diligently represent his client. He failed to provide a formal response to requests for admissions regarding the property at issue and failed to file a response to a motion for summary judgment.

In Count Two, Mr. Poster was hired to represent a confidential informant. Upon reviewing disclosure material, Poster noticed that a former client was mentioned in the police reports. Poster and the prosecutor discussed the potential conflict of interest. Poster took no action and the prosecutor was forced to file a motion to determine counsel. Poster disclosed the former client’s status as a confidential informant to a lawyer representing a defendant who was arrested and criminally charged due to Respondent’s former client’s action. This disclosure endangered Poster’s former client.

Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offenses and multiple offenses. Mitigating factors: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, personal or emotional problems, timely good faith efforts to make restitution or rectify the consequences of misconduct, character or reputation, and remorse.

Mr. Poster violated Rule 42, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., ERs 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, and 8.4(d).

Source Arizona State Bar.


Rick Poster claims on AVVO that he is retired however sources say he is not retired. Writes:

Attorney Rick Poster of Phoenix; lying loser


The Arizona State Bar found Ricky guilty of the following misconduct.

  • Misconduct involved multiple offenses
  • Refused to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct
  • Failed to act with due diligence (slacker)
  • Pursued a frivolous claim
  • Made a state he knew to be false with reckless disregard as to its falsity concerning qualification or integrity of trial judge
  • Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

As a consequence of his misconduct, the cheerleaders of Attorney Misfits sitting on the Arizona Supreme Court punished Ricky by gifting him with a complimentary reprimand.

As we speak  Ricky practices with The Poster Law Firm LLLC at 11024 North 28th Drive in Phoenix, Arizona.

Source; Arizona State Bar Writes:

Official order of probation.,%20Rick%20D.%20018115%20PDJ-2017-9034.pdf


Arizona State Bar
4201 N. 24th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016


RE: Formal Ethics Complaint Against:
Rick D. Poster – SBN #018115
11024 N. 28th Drive, Suite 200

Phoenix, AZ 85029

(623) 261-4532

The factual basis for this complaint arises from Rick D. Poster (hereafter, “Poster”) and his law office the Poster Law Firm PLLC (hereafter, “Firm”) misconduct in Case No. CV2013-003800, Charles Rodrick vs. David Michael Ellis, et al. and Case No. 2:13-cv-01300-SRB, John Doe #1, et al. v. Chuck Rodrick, et al. The egregious unethical conduct has involved Charles Rodrick (hereafter, “Rodrick”) and has extended through a period exceeding four (4) and a half years.

Violating his ethical duties and obligations as an attorney as defined by the Arizona Duties and Obligations as defined by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct contained within Rule 42 (hereinafter, “Rules”), Arizona Revised Superior Court, by engaging in repeated instances of violating ER 3.4, ER 4.1, ER 4.4, ER 7.1  and ER 8.4. The seriousness and scope of the misconduct perpetrated by Poster over an extended period of time calls for an extensive review of the entire circumstances outlined below. The specific violations committed by Poster are governed by the following Rule 42 dictates:

  1. ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; (b)falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.
  2. ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others. In the course of representing a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by ER 1.6.
  3. ER 4.4 – Respect for Rights of Others. (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden any other person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
  4. ER 7.1 – Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services. A lawyer shall not make or knowingly permit to be made on the lawyer’s behalf a false or misleading communication about the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.
  5. ER 8.4 – Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

It is requested that the Review Department order that Poster be disbarred from the practice of law in this State and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

The allegations herein regarding Poster’s misconduct are summarized as follows:

  • Poster not only encouraged Lois Flynn (hereafter, “Flynn”) in hiding, selling and/or transferring assets from the community martial estate to third-parties, in a scheme or artifice to defraud Rodrick, he actively took part in such activities to enrich himself personally in clear violation of numerous Rules.


On November 16, 2011, Rodrick and Flynn filed a Petition for Dissolution of a Non-Covenant Marriage FC2011-005859. In the referenced Dissolution Action a Preliminary Injunction was issued which stated in relevant parts “ACTIONS FORBIDEN BY THIS ORDER: You may not sell the community property or give it away to someone, UNLESS you have written permission of your spouse or written permission from the Court” (emphasis added).


On August 20, 20112, in the above-referenced action, Judge Christopher Whitten issued a Stipulated Order RE: Sale of Assets. The Order further states “If a party receives an offer to purchase an item, he or she promptly shall communicate that offer to the other party” (emphasis added) (See, Exhibit A).  Included in the list of assets specifically identified by the Court’s Stipulated Order were a 2000 Golf Cart, 2000 Bombardier ATV, 1997 WLSCA Flatbed Trailer and a 2005 Rhino. All these items, with an approximate resell value of $8,000.00 to $9,000.00, would allegedly be sold by Flynn to Poster for a total of $1,000.00 – cash.


It was not until on or about January 6, 2014, Rodrick was informed the Rhino vehicle, trailer, various ATVs and golf cart were all “missing.” Having received no communication of a sale or transfer as required by the Stipulated Order, Rodrick had no idea what may have occurred to the assets. Rodrick inquired with the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (hereinafter, “MVD”) and was informed that some of the vehicles had been conveyed to Poster by Flynn in June 2013.


As the “missing” vehicles were illegally conveyed, since all titles were solely registered in Rodrick’s name, an official inquiry was initiated with the Arizona Department of Transportation (hereinafter, “ADOT”), Office of the Inspector General to determine what occurred. Detective Keith Richardson was assigned the case who began a criminal investigation into this matter. During the investigation by Detective Richardson, it was discovered that the titles conveyed to Poster were in fact void titles and never should have been allowed to be inputted into the MVD system. In an investigation interview conducted by Detective Richardson of Poster, it was admitted that after taking illegal possession and de facto ownership of the vehicle assets, they were sold by Poster to unidentified third parties.


Poster’s relationship with Flynn was not limited to friendly and professional in the context of working in the same offices. Although Poster was not Flynn’s attorney for the Dissolution proceedings, there existed a profession legal counsel relationship as Poster had provided legal representation in other matters. Case in point, he represented Flynn in a case involving Rodrick that began in California but after a change in venue would be litigated in the United States District Court, District of Arizona case no. 2:13-cv-01300-SRB. Although not being a litigant, Flynn had submitted a declaration into the federal case specifically detailing martial assets jointly owned with Rodrick (See, Exhibit X). When Rodrick served a Notice of Deposition for Flynn to validate the veracity in sworn testimony the claims of her declaration it was met with a Motion to Quash filed by Poster providing legal counsel to Flynn (See, Exhibit B). Poster was undeniably fully aware of any and all legal matters associated with the Stipulated Order concerning the joint martial assets of his client Flynn and adversary respondent Rodrick. Poster knowingly engage in the illegal vehicle title transfers with full knowledge of not only the fraudulence, but also that it was in violation of a Court Order that clearly detailed the terms and conditions of any and all transfers or sale of assets. He was not deterred with such information from defying the Order to his financial benefit.


Based on the evidence available documenting the events that occurred associated with Poster’s involvement with the vehicle title transfer and subsequent sale for personal financial gain, there are clear violations of ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others, ER 4.4 – Respect for Rights of Others and ER 8.4 – Misconduct.


  • Poster knowingly employed the services of Arizona licensed notary Dorothy Bishop to perpetrate the illegal title transfers of martial assets which resulted in “the Secretary of State has determine to revoke the Notary’s commission effective immediately” (See, Exhibit C).


To facilitate the sale of the vehicle assets required the assistance of Dorothy Bishop (hereinafter, “Bishop”) being an Arizona licensed notary who worked in the same office as Poster and was a fellow employee of the employer of Flynn. Bishop notarized the fraudulent titles which were not signed by Rodrick, but rather would be signed fraudulently by Flynn (See, Exhibit D) with the knowledge, assistance and legal counsel of Poster. Bishop would refuse all attempts by Detective Richardson to be interviewed concerning the title transfers of the vehicle assets. A formal complaint was filed with the Secretary of State, Notary Public Division by Detective Richardson against Dorothy Bishop to have her Notary Public License revoked (See, Exhibit E). The complaint would detail the clearly unethical and illegal conduct associated with the vehicle title transfer of martial assets of her fellow employee and personal friend Flynn to illegal ownership of attorney Poster whom Bishop had an ongoing working relationship and personal friendship with both due to working in the same office.


After having refused to cooperate with Detective Robertson’s inquiries, Bishop would also refuse to respond to the disciplinary process conducted by the Secretary of State. The findings of the investigation would determine Bishop had engaged in numerous violations of Arizona notary law (See, Exhibit F):


  1. The Notary failed to record all notarial acts in her journal. A.R.S. § 41-319 & 41-313(E)(1).
  2. The Notary failed to record requisite journal information. A.R.S. § 41-319 & 41-313(E)(1).
  3. The Notary failed to keep a journal in accordance with A.R.S. 41-319 as required by A.R.S. § 41-313(E)(1).
  4. The Notary failed to document satisfactory evidence of identity in her journal as required by A.R.S. 41-313(E)(1), 41-319(A)(4),(5) & 41-330(A)(4).
  5. The Notary executed a statement known to be false. A.R.S. 41-330(A)(10).
  6. The Notary failed to administer the jurat-oath. A.R.S. 41-330(A)(9).
  7. The Notary of a jurat notarial certificate on a document that contains blanks. A.R.S. 41-328(A).
  8. Failure to discharge fully and faithfully the duties of a notary public. A.R.S. 41-330(A)(4).


These were very serious conclusions by the Secretary of State’s Office and it was not surprising they rendered an immediate revocation of the Notary’s commission. There is no rational explanation for such atrocious disregard for even the most basic of the standards and requirements to be a licensed notary public. Bishop had maintained her commission without disciplinary concerns for years prior to Poster’s recruitment and involvement with his nefarious agenda to enrich himself and defraud Rodrick of his share of martial assets. It is outrageous on many levels the misconduct of Poster, not the least of which has to be the willful corrupting and ultimately discrediting of others such as Bishop destroying a professional reputation with her neglecting the notary responsibilities to uphold per state licensing criteria.

In reviewing the specifics surrounding Poster’s having notary public Bishop engaged in the scheme to defraud Rodrick of his assets that included the falsified and fraudulent documents requiring a notary seal takes the criminality of such conduct to a wholly disturbing level. The specifics of the vehicle title transfers evidence clear ethical violations by Poster of ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others, ER 4.4 – Respect for Rights of Others and ER 8.4 – Misconduct.


  • When confronted by ADOT Detectives investigating the fraudulent title transfer, Poster committed Obstruction of Justice by refusing to cooperate and attempted to intimidate by involving Phoenix Police Department with a false compliant against the Detectives.


On January 15, 2014, Detective Richardson would arrive at the office of Poster to question him regarding the fraudulent title transfers. Poster would be extremely belligerent and non-cooperative as he became increasingly very agitated. When Detective Richardson attempted to question Flynn she refused to answer and directed him to contact her Dissolution attorney Joe Romely (hereinafter, “Romley”) for any further information. Unbeknownst to Detective Robertson a phone call had been placed by Poster to the Phoenix Police Department alleging Detective Richardson was somehow a process server and trespassing even though he had identified himself and provided his badge as an officer.


When the Phoenix Police arrived at Poster’s office with Detective Robertson present, there were a few minutes required for the officer to sort out what occurred and the issues present. With Detective Robertson identifying himself as a Detective Officer of the ADOT on official business it was quickly ascertained what had occurred. Poster had knowingly made a fraudulent and false police report. The police officers offered to arrest Poster right then and there if Detective Robertson was willing to file an official complaint. He declined the offer. This does not excuse the outrageous conduct of Poster in any way. Such abhorrent behavior is not acceptable when dealing with any citizen, let alone an officer performing his official duties. The Rules are clear on how a licensed lawyer is to treat others and Poster’s action made a mockery of the norms of civility let alone the Code of Professional Conduct.


There should be no tolerance by the SBA for rogue attorneys such as Poster conducting himself in what is undeniably atrocious behavior. Detective Roberson was merely investigating very real and documented discrepancies in vehicle title transfers that had been deemed fraudulently executed. The line of questioning was completely justified and did not merit the rude and belligerent reaction demonstrated by Poster. There certainly can be no excuse for Poster to resort to making false and fabricated claims to the Phoenix Police Department that Detective Robertson was a “process server who was trespassing.” This series of action by Poster could have / should have resulted in his arrest.

The events of January 14, 2014 in themselves are reasonable justification to disbar Poster. They represent a whole plethora of misconduct that defies the claimed prerequisites to be maintained by an Arizona licensed attorney. Just to stay consistent in detailing the complaint, the ethical violations outlined include ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others, ER 4.4 – Respect for Rights of Others and ER 8.4 – Misconduct.


  • Poster working jointly with Flynn’s Dissolution attorney Romely would falsify the transfer and sale of the martial assets with a bogus paper trail to present to the Family Court.


Another issue of concern for the SBA should be an attorney Poster allegedly negotiating with his client Flynn a financial transaction that would garner receipt of $8,000.00 to $9,000.00 worth of martial assets for the sum of $1,000.00 – cash transaction.  Such a one-sided and lopsided transaction stretches the bounds of plausibility and raise serious issues of Poster taking advantage of his responsibilities of a trusted legal counsel. Poster clearly self-dealt to his financial benefit without regard to any and all fiduciary obligations of fair and equitable representation.


What occurred was Rodrick learning of the “missing” assets the first week of January, 2014. The inquiries with the MVD produced the paper trail of title transfer occurring between Flynn and Poster in June, 2013. Six or seven months had passed without any notification being provided to Rodrick as required by the Court’s Stipulated Order, a clear case of contempt of court by both Flynn and Poster. On January 7, 2014, attorney Melinda Sloma, on behalf of Rodrick, sent a letter to Romley requesting information regarding the items illegally conveyed to Poster in violation of the Court’s Order. On January 15, 2015 Romley delivered a response that Poster had “paid $1000.00 in cash” that very day with no explanation for the six (6) month delay from when the illegal vehicle title transfer to Poster had occurred (See, Exhibit G). Nor was there an explanation for the obvious discrepancy in the amount collected “in cash”versus the resell value of the assets being $8,000.00 to $9,000.00. Furthermore, no rationale was provided for Flynn and Poster engaging in a scheme that involved illegal fabrication of vehicle title transfers and in clear violation of the Court’s Stipulated Order.


The response provided by Romely in his letter is beyond absurd. This was an outright theft of assets perpetrated by Poster involving his client Flynn to defraud Rodrick. The claim of a deficient to value collection of $1,000.00 that very day six months after the occurrence “in cash” so there was no banking documentation in the form of a check or transfer is ridiculous. Not only is it implausible, it is derelict by all parties in abiding to the Court’s Order and implicates Flynn and both attorneys, Romely and unjust monetarily enriched Poster, to have engaged in a fraud conspiracy.


There is sufficient evidence that Flynn, through her own admissions and the illegal title transfers, communications with Poster, and the resell of the martial assets by Poster to third-party Metro Motorsports of Glendale, Arizona (See, Exhibit H) for his personal benefit constitutes knowingly engaging in a conspiracy to defraud Rodrick. Based on these facts, it not only establishes Poster as being Flynn’s personal attorney in some legal matters and was fully aware of existing Court restrictions, but also encouraged the intent to renege and/or not participate in good faith in the stipulated sale of assets agreement and Court Order, and then subsequently lent aid to one another in the fraudulent scheme or artifice to transfer and/or encumber martial assets.


Such a brazen and documented trail of deceit and malfeasance perpetrated by Poster is irrefutable proof that he engaged in ethical violations of ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others, ER 4.4 – Respect for Rights of Others and ER 8.4 – Misconduct.



  • Officer of the Court Brandon Bowers was personally threatened when executing legal service of properly filed Court documents by Poster, which was just cause for a complaint to be filed with the SBA (See, Exhibit I).  


Additional erratic and irrational behavior occurred with Poster reacting to officer of the court Brandon Bowers attempting to legally procure service of valid court documents.  Poster would aggressively threaten and verbally assault Bowers who was simply performing the normal process of officially serving papers. This should not have been some unfamiliar occurrence for a practicing lawyer. It may be an understandable inconvenience, but a normal and required function of the judicial process that all attorneys endure as part of the job. For Bowers part it is not unusual to not be well received in performing his job by the recipient of legal papers. It is part of his job. However, the reaction of Poster crossed a line of aggression and unwarranted threats that he felt compelled to file an official complaint with the SBA. This is not normal and should not be dismissed off hand as it is one more example of Poster repeatedly engaging in conduct not in line with the dictates as prescribed by the mission, vision, and core values that are suppose to govern the conduct of an attorney in both his profession and private life.


Even more importantly is the dictates as defined in the statutes and implemented as the Rules. These are not suggestions and/or guidelines for consideration if convenient. They are the law and compliance is not an option, it is required. In dealing with Bowers serving legal documents Rodrick had filed with the Court, Poster was in ethical violation of ER 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, ER 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others, ER 4.4 – Respect for Rights of Others and ER 8.4 – Misconduct.


  • To the detriment of the public, the Poster legal practice has demonstrated a propensity to misrepresentation and outright lies in its online advertising in violation of Rule 7.1 requiring he not engage in “false or misleading communication about the lawyer’s services.”


In order to protect the public from deceptive marketing by attorneys, the Rules address the issue with very succinct language that leaves no ambiguity to its meaning in ER 7.1 - Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services. Clearly stating:


“A lawyer shall not make or knowingly permit to be made on the lawyer’s behalf a false or misleading communication about the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.”


It is no surprise that Poster would blatantly ignore the simple prerequisites of ER 7.1 when communicating online the services of his legal practice. In what is recognized as the foremost private online source for attorney information, the website list Poster as “RETIRED.” The website itself provides its own independent due diligence in notifying the viewer that “This lawyer has been disciplined by a state licensing authority” for “Professional Misconduct”  (See, Exhibit J). The website would not have independent knowledge of an alleged retirement; this would have required a direct disclosure or falsely claimed by Poster to be posted online. However, when reviewing the website, the services offered by Poster make no mention of a retirement nor offer any disclosure of the current disciplinary action of 18 month probation from practicing law in Arizona (See, Exhibit K). These depictions of the Poster law practice are clearly contradictory as both cannot be true. Knowingly misrepresenting or blatantly lying to the public that causes obvious confusion is exactly the type of “communications” specifically detailed as restricted by ER 7.1.


To further exacerbate the fraudulence disseminated on the website is the claim that the Poster Law Firm was recognized for “Criminal Defense Law, 2015 Best of Phoenix, Presented by Best Businesses” (See, Exhibit L). There is no such award based on objective criteria and/or analysis, it is an online fabrication that has been designated with a “Scam Alert” (See, Exhibit M). Such an unsubstantiated assertion is pure hyperbole willfully created by Poster to misrepresent and/or actively lie to the public searching for legal representation. Making false claims online as “Best of Phoenix” do an injustice to the reality of Poster’s multiple disciplinary complaints reviewed by the SBA and an overall proven proclivity of unethical conduct in violation of the Rules. This is exactly the type of “communications” that constitute deliberate deceptive advertising to misinform the public. There can be no dispute Poster is in violation of multiple infractions of ER 7.1 – Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services.


  • The SBA is entrusted to provide protection to all Arizona citizens, including, but not limited to Rodrick, from the malfeasance of attorneys who engage in unethical conduct such as those repeatedly perpetrated by Poster.


According to the website, the Mission Statement of the “SBA exists to serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice.” With “Core Values” such as “Integrity: This value represents our commitment to truth in all of its forms and in all of our actions. It is adherence to the spirit as well as to the letter of the law. It is consistency, transparency, and accountability for what we say and what we do, as individuals, as professionals, and as an organization.” Also, “Professionalism: This value represents our commitment to each other and to all whom we encounter to act with highest level of sensitivity to the feelings of others. It transcends common courtesy and requires treating all persons within the sphere of our influence with dignity, respect, and unqualified civility.”[1]


One of the issues to be determined is if such proclamations of virtue and altruism by the SBA are genuine or just deceptive rhetoric to profess nonexistent dogma. On January 15, 2014 Rodrick attempted to have the SBA review the unethical conduct of Poster by filing a formal complaint (See, Exhibit N). At that time Rodrick was engaged in an active civil case before the Arizona Superior Court involving Poster and the SBA claimed the complaint could not be reviewed until the civil litigation was resolved in some manner. The case was dismissed (See, Exhibit O) until the issues alleged were first addressed before the Court litigating a Dissolution proceeding was concluded (still active). It is incumbent upon the SBA to adhere to the claimed organizational ideals to properly review and evaluate Rodrick’s complaint presented herein that is no longer hindered by the case previously cited as a reason to not move forward with the disciplinary process.


It has been the practice of Poster to create the false narrative that Rodrick is a vexatious litigant when pursuing legal remedy to a multitude of nefarious actions experienced when dealing with lawyers. The interesting aspect of such unjustified accusations is to review the facts of such occurrences associated to the SBA. Rodrick filed a complaint against attorney Anne Williams to which a Superior Court Judge found her misconduct worthy of sanctions totaling $5,000 and SBA would issue disciplinary action. In 2015, Rodrick filed a complaint against attorney Daniel R. Warner and his Kelly/Warner Law firm which was effectively ignored due solely to their assertions that a non-existent person/employee named Barry Grossman (of an unknown gender) had engaged in the conduct alleged by Rodrick. Ironically this dismissal despite the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence to the contrary concerning Warner and the firm has reared its very ugly head as the continued criminality would garner national attention by the Washington Post (esteemed UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh) and other online media properties. The SBA could no longer ignore and/or sweep under the carpet the facts first brought forward by Rodrick in 2015 (See, Exhibit P). The nefarious business practices of Warner and the firm having been thoroughly investigated by Bar Counsel Bradley Perry rendered an 8 – 0 vote by the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee to issue a Probable Cause Order on November 2, 2017 to continue on to a formal proceeding before the Arizona Supreme Court (See, Exhibit Q). Rodrick is now revisiting the issues concerning Poster and his misconduct. Rodrick is NOT the issue as time has proved. The issue is that so many licensed attorneys in Arizona are allowed to conduct their law practices with a complete disregard to the Rules as being held accountable is the exception and rarely the rule. Rodrick has been the “whistleblower” that has had his legitimate complaints dismissed until the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence can no longer be ignored by the SBA.


It was the discovery of the latest disciplinary actions enacted upon Poster by the SBA that Rodrick recognized it was his duty to resubmit the allegations previously filed in 2014. The veracity of the claims of Rodrick are unhindered by time and are actually further validated by Poster’s continued improprieties. Had the SBA not demonstrated such indifference to fulfilling its stated duty in 2014, the unfortunate recipient Robert G. White (see, Exhibit R) of Poster’s continued unethical violations of the Rules may have been avoided. Such repeated malfeasance by Poster needs to be fully documented and reviewed so the appropriate conclusion rendering disbarment is finally enacted to protect the public. Rodrick has a right to have his SBA complaint reviewed with the proper due diligence. The SBA claims their marching orders are to protect the public. Poster has prior complaints and now is under 18 month probation. These infractions do not include any findings in regard to the legitimate complaint of 2014 that detailed egregious misconduct by Poster that merited review, evaluation and a disciplinary conclusion of disbarment. When does the SBA honor its duty in protecting the public from Poster?


The State Bar is charged with the responsibility of protecting the public from problematic attorneys. In the case of Poster, he has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity to ethical violations with a complete disregard to Rules. As part of this duty, the State Bar should ensure that the public has ready access to information about attorney misconduct, so it can make informed decisions about who to retain when seeking counsel.

For these reasons, the State Bar should conduct an In-depth investigation into the allegations outlined in detail in this complaint in regards to attorney Poster. The damages realized by Rodrick due to the extensive misconduct of Poster are significant and must be thoroughly reviewed to determine the amount of culpability that can be associated with the malpractice. I submit this complaint and ask that the State Bar take action against Poster in the form of disbarment for the continued repeated disdain demonstrated in conducting himself in violation of the Rules, and also make public the various acts of misconduct described herein.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

[1] E.g. State Bar of Arizona – Mission, Vision, and Core Values:

Rick Poster complaint exhibits are withheld pending state bar investigation