Pubdate: Tue, 25 Dec 2012
Source: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ)
Copyright: 2012 The Arizona Republic
Contact: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/sendaletter.html
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Author: Michelle Ye Hee Lee

MEDICAL-POT BATTLE GROWS TESTY

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery is alleging that an attorney
who represents a proposed medical-marijuana dispensary violated ethics
rules by attempting to dissuade the Board of Supervisors, Montgomery's
client, from taking his advice.

Acting on that advice, the Board of Supervisors declined to follow the
state's medical-marijuana law and has disallowed medical-marijuana
dispensaries or cultivation sites within the county's jurisdiction.
Montgomery had warned the board that county employees who carry out
the state law may be subject to federal prosecution because marijuana
is not a federally approved drug.

But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Gordon rejected that
claim earlier this month. He ruled that county officials must give the
White Mountain Health Center paperwork showing whether it complies
with dispensary zoning rules.

The center last week applied for zoning clearance for five location
options near Sun City. The county did not verify any of the proposed
locations because they would not comply with zoning ordinances.

Jeffrey Kaufman, attorney for the center, had accused the county of
purposely stalling action on the center's application to prevent it
from obtaining a state operating license. The center became embroiled
in a legal controversy over the state's medical-marijuana law and
whether it contradicts the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Voters in 2010 approved the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, which
allows qualifying patients with certain debilitating medical
conditions to use marijuana.

After Gordon's ruling rejecting Montgomery's arguments, Kaufman wrote
a Dec. 14 letter to the Board of Supervisors asking its cooperation
for the center to open a dispensary near Sun City at a "location that
is acceptable to all of us."

Since the ruling, at least two dispensaries -- one in Glendale and
another in Tucson -- have opened their doors. The Board of Supervisors
last week unanimously approved Montgomery's request to appeal the ruling.

"Frankly, we have continuously reached out to the Maricopa County
Attorney's Office, hoping to agree upon a mutually-acceptable location
for our client's medical marijuana dispensary. ... Unfortunately, Mr.
Montgomery's response has never changed. He continues to insist that
marijuana is against federal law and that the Arizona Medical
Marijuana Act is unenforceable," Kaufman wrote.

"We are writing this letter to you because we know that you are not
required to follow Mr. Montgomery's advice," Kaufman wrote.

Montgomery responded to Kaufman's letter about a week later, chiding
Kaufman for attempting to sidestep him and contacting his clients
without consent from him or his office. He said Kaufman failed to
attend last week's board meeting, when Kaufman could have spoken
during a public-comment period on Gordon's ruling.

Montgomery accused Kaufman of an ethical violation as a lawyer and
said his office is preparing a state Bar complaint against him.

"This letter is not intended to invite a discussion, debate or
negotiation over your behavior. It is to advise you" of the pending
Bar complaint, Montgomery wrote.

"Your attempts to circumvent my role as advisor to the Board and
supplant my advice with your own also irresponsibly places Board
members in the precarious position of acting contrary to a written
opinion of a county attorney," Montgomery wrote.

The County Attorney's Office declined to comment further. The
complaint had not been filed Monday.

In an interview, Kaufman said, "I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to
contact the Board of Supervisors. I'm still not sure that I wasn't
allowed to contact them. They aren't a party to the lawsuit, but if
I'd done something wrong I'm sincerely sorry about it."

He added: "Why would there be a need to publicly chastise me when all
he had to do was report my conduct to the state Bar? I'm just totally
perplexed why they would make a letter chastising me public record."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D