Suspended lawyer attacks AZ AG in Republic editorial

Serial suer has filed hundreds of lawsuits, been suspended by State Bar

The Opinion page at the daily newspaper consists of a one-sided view of events and individuals. There hasn’t been an Op-Ed page in years — one challenging the editorial page rife with leftist spew. At one time the now-failing Arizona Republic occasionally ran syndicated conservative columnists, whose opinion pieces it had to purchase. Now it relies on “My Turn” activists with a grudge to bolster its radical editorial board’s distorted views.

 The irrational headline, “Why does Brnovich hate the disabled,” is a case in point. Brnovich is Arizona’s Attorney General Mark Brnovich. The absurd “hate” charge is leveled by lawyer Peter Strojnik, a legal gadfly who has made a career of filing specious Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits.  In 2012, Peter Stojnik, was reinstated as a member of the State Bar of Arizona  after being suspended for 30 days.

 The lack of ethics are hereditary. In December 2016, Strojnik’s same named lawyer son was suspended by the State Bar of Arizona for attempting to “publicly shame” a business into settlement. Peter K. Strojnik was suspended for 30 days and ordered to serve a two-year probation period, which included undergoing chemical dependency treatment and  psychological evaluation.

 ABC15 News Investigative reporter Dave Biscobing provides the background on the elder Peter Stojnik’s ongoing legal battles with the Federal Court and Attorney General Mark Brnovich. Hundreds of questionable accessibility lawsuits have been filed against Valley businesses without prior notification.

 The bizarre newspaper article features a boldfaced question below the vulgar headline claiming Brnovich hates the disabled: “Courts have repeatedly slapped down the Arizona attorney general’s efforts to fight the rights of the disabled. Why is he still at it?”

That the Arizona Republic would print this factually incorrect information tells more about the lack of judgment of Phil Boas, the newspaper’s editorial director, than it does about the repeatedly sanctioned, provocateur lawyer who wrote the preposterous article and deals in deceit.