County Attorney Andrew Thomas fights to seal Wilenchik's State Bar secrets

Nowhere in the coverage was one important detail: Thomas' office has repeatedly hired Calderon.

The Calderon Law Firm is tiny — just Calderon himself and one other lawyer. Public records show that the firm has earned $231,000 working for the County Attorney's Office since Thomas took office.

Even beyond that, Thomas paid Calderon to write the affidavit! It says so right in Calderon's filing.

The guy is a paid witness, not an unbiased legal expert. (Calderon denied comment, saying that he will be an expert witness in the case — and "I don't want any more retribution from the Bar.")

This is the best Andrew Thomas could come up with?

The third expert, former Chief Justice Zlaket, doesn't appear to have any such conflicts. But there is one big hole in his conclusion that the complaints against Thomas are meritless.

Namely, Zlaket filed his affidavit before New Times even made its Bar complaint. He couldn't have been looking at the full roster of abuse that our lawyers outlined — the Bar didn't even have it yet.

Apparently, the Bar opened its own investigation into the New Times case based on information we published, namely the fact that Dennis Wilenchik, while acting as special prosecutor, attempted ex parte communication with a judge. Zlaket looked at that and decided that Thomas was off the hook. "Based on the information that I have received and reviewed, Mr. Thomas did not direct or ratify Mr. Wilenchik's conduct," Zlaket wrote.

Then, on May 1, according to the Bar's legal filing, Thomas was finally given a copy of the lengthy complaint that this newspaper filed with the Bar. That complaint didn't just deal with the ex parte meeting — it also focused on the fact that Thomas chose to appoint the sheriff's lawyer as a special prosecutor in a case in which the sheriff was the ostensible "victim." That's a clear conflict of interest.

Thomas' lawyer, Beus, says Zlaket has been updated on the latest allegations. But those allegations aren't, in fact, covered by the affidavit Zlaket filed in the case. That one, by its own admission, looks only at the ex parte issue — a small piece of what's on the table.

The sad thing is that Thomas' public relations blitz proved enough to win Round One. Scarred by Thomas' full-frontal attack on its credibility, and clearly worried about the Arizona Republic's damning coverage, the State Bar filed a response last week that defended its process — but agreed to remove both its probable-cause panelist and chief investigator from the probe.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, that means the Bar's chief counsel, Bob Van Wyck, is off the case.

An even bigger victory for Thomas: The decisions made by probable-cause panelist Alan Bayham Jr. could be subject to another person's review, should the new investigator choose to re-examine them.

That includes the decision not to seal the Wilenchik materials — and whether to pursue even more materials from Thomas. Beus says the Bar's investigator demanded more documents and work product from Thomas. "They made it clear they were never going to end [the investigation of Thomas] until we gave up all this privileged material," he says. "That's why we're here."

Ed Novak, the newly elected president of the State Bar, tells me that the "confluence of facts," rather than any missteps by Van Wyck or Bayham, led to the decision.

Having an independent investigator review the case should increase public confidence in whatever happens next, Novak says.

"Out of concern for the integrity of the process, we thought it would be best to appoint an independent investigator," he says.

That's all well and good. But does the Bar honestly think Thomas is going to be happy just because they've agreed to appoint a new investigator and a new probable cause panelist? If the Supreme Court decides to let the independent investigator finish its investigation, and the new panelist agrees that Thomas' request to seal the file is overly broad, do you think Thomas will simply accept that ruling and let the investigation run its course?

Of course not.

The Bar is right to take the ethical high road. But that is not how Andrew Thomas is playing this game.

To the Bar, this is about integrity. To Thomas, it's about winning — and somehow, despite a near- disastrous first term in office, holding onto his seat this fall.

If that means hiring lackeys to prop up his point of view, and failing to disclose their quarter-million-dollar conflict-of-interest, fine by him.

If that means giving "experts" half the story, then quoting them as if they're talking about all of it, so be it.

And if that means stalling the investigation by getting the Supreme Court to intervene, that's okay, too.

For Andrew Thomas, this is war. And he obviously thinks he can't win if we learn the truth about what happened between him and Dennis Wilenchik.

He's got something to hide. And we can be damn sure he's going to do everything in his power to make sure we don't see it. At least, not until after November.