Torts/Professional Conduct: Bar Complaint as Basis for Claim of Wrongful Civil Proceeding

Accursio v. Tree House Labs, LLC, No. CV-250028-PR (September 10, 2026) (J. King) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2026/CV250028PR.pdf?ver=RKuX2b2EOG2fv9y0IL_Vnw%3d%3d

WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDING ACTION MAY BE MAINTAINED AGAINST PARTY FILING BAR COMPLAINT AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND CLAIM ACCRUES FOR SOL PURPOSES WHEN PLAINTIFF LAWYER IS PROVIDED WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF SCREENING INVESTIGATION

Disputes arose surrounding ownership interests in Tree House Labs. Plaintiff, a lawyer in a New York/DC represented a party in the dispute which was being litigated in Arizona. Plaintiff filed a bar complaint against one of the other attorneys in the dispute and that lawyer retaliated with a bar complaint against plaintiff brought with the State Bar of Arizona. Plaintiff lawyer was accused of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by defendant lawyer because he was representing a party in litigation in Arizona but was not licensed in Arizona. This bar complaint resulted in an investigation culminating in a dismissal because the alleged “unauthorized practice of law” could not be established by “clear and convincing” evidence. 

Plaintiff attorney brings this wrongful institution of civil proceeding [WICP] claim against defendant alleging the dismissed bar complaint was brought “without any supporting evidence” and in “retaliation” for the bar complaint plaintiff had filed against the defendant. Plaintiff brought a separate claim of “aiding and abetting” against another lawyer involved in the ownership dispute. The Maricopa County Superior court dismissed the action under Rule 12 (b)(6) finding the filing of a bar complaint is not a “judicial proceeding” to support a WICP claim. The aiding and abetting claims being secondary to the WICP both claims were dismissed. The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated the superior court ruling and the Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded the trial court ruling and vacated the court of appeals memorandum decision.

While communications to the State Bar related to lawyer misconduct are “absolutely privileged” and cannot support a WICP Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 48(l) & Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 80(a)(6), and while certain enumerated people are immune from suit arising out a bar complaint proceedings, Rules 48(l) & 80(a)(6),  complainants filing the bar complaint are not one of them.

We conclude the filing of such a charge may serve as the predicate

“civil proceeding” for a WICP claim.  Also, Rules 48(l) and 80(a)(6) do not

immunize a complainant from a WICP claim for the act of filing a charge. 

These Rules merely provide that statements made to the State Bar or given

in testimony are privileged, and a civil action may not rely upon such

privileged statements.  A plaintiff in a WICP action, however, may rely

upon relevant, admissible evidence that is not privileged, such as the

complainant's non-privileged communications, the timing of filing, and

other background facts.

When a charge alleges a lawyer admitted to

practice in Arizona has violated the Ethical Rules, the “civil proceeding”

commences when the lawyer is provided written notice of a screening

investigation and required to provide a written response to the

allegations.  See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 55(b)(1).

[There is a lengthy dissent by Montgomery & Cruz not summarized here)