State Bar of Arizona v David Gingras: Telephonic Conference (audio only) | April 6, 2026
This video presents the audio recording of a formal telephonic conference held on April 6, 2026, in the disciplinary matter of David S. Gingras (Case No. PDJ2026-9010).
Who Is Involved?
The Honorable Judge VandenBerg: Presiding over the hearing.
David S. Gingras: The Respondent
Jim Lee: Senior Bar Counsel representing the State Bar of Arizona.
What Was the Hearing For?
This proceeding was a "Hearing on Notice of Failure to Comply with Disclosure Rules." David Gingras filed a motion alleging that the State Bar was withholding critical information regarding their "star witness," Judge Julie Mata. Gingras argued that he could not properly defend himself because the Bar (Jim Lee) refused to disclose the specific substance of Judge Mata’s anticipated testimony.
Summary of the Hearing
The hearing was marked by procedural tension as the court addressed several motions and housekeeping matters in the following order:
The "Color" Rule Violation: Immediately after appearances, Judge VandenBerg reprimanded Gingras for violating Civil Rule 5.2. She noted that his filings included colors and embedded screenshots, which violated court directives for black-and-white formatting. The Judge emphasized that future filings must strictly comply with these rules.
The "Lawyer vs. Witness" Argument: The court then addressed Gingras's attempt to categorize Senior Bar Counsel Jim Lee as a witness or "complainant" rather than an attorney. The Judge rejected this argument, clarifying that the State Bar of Arizona itself is the complainant, and Mr. Lee is simply the lawyer representing the Bar.
The Witness Dispute: Finally, the court moved to the core of the disclosure dispute. Gingras demanded more specific details regarding the anticipated testimony of Judge Julie Mata. The State Bar countered that their disclosures met the legal standard and that further details were protected work product. After hearing both sides, Judge VandenBerg denied Gingras’s motion, finding no violation by the Bar.
Ultimately, Judge VandenBerg denied Gingras’s requests in their entirety, finding that the State Bar had complied with its disclosure obligations and that Gingras’s procedural challenges lacked legal merit.
Case Documents can be found here: https://victimsoflauraowens.com/david...
Legal Access & Disclosure
This recording was obtained legally via a formal records request to the State Bar of Arizona. Access and redistribution are authorized under the following Arizona Supreme Court Rules:
Rule 70 (Public Access): Mandates that formal lawyer discipline proceedings are public records once a formal complaint is filed.
Rule 123 (Public Access to the Judicial Branch): Establishes that all court records are open to the public unless specifically sealed.
#davidgingras #justiceforclayton #claytonechard #lauraowens #LauraMichelleOwens #owenscase #StateBarOfArizona #lawtube #legalnews #caseupdates #courtcase #justicesystem #lawandcrime #LegalEthics #CourtTranscripts #arizona #maricopacounty #mcao #scottsdale #schnitzelninja #mustwatch #investigativereporting #truecrimecommunity
#attorney