LEGAL OPINION OF BOB BARR, ESQ. STATE OF GEORGIA) d COUNTY OF COBB J BOB BARR, first having been duly sworn, deposes and says: 1 My name is Bob Barr. I am a former United States Attomey and am currently practicing law of counsel with the Law Offices of Edwin Marger. 1 teach Constitutional Law at John Marshall Law School in Atlanta, Georgia, and serve also as President and CEO of a consulting firm named Liberty Strategies, Inc., which specializes in goverment relations and public policy. 2. have been retained by counsel with Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart in connection with their representation of Andrew P. Thomas, Esq. regarding ethics screening investigations initiated by the Arizona State Bar into Mr. Thomas’ criminal prosecution of high profile Maricopa County publie officials and other matters. I, EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS 3, I graduated with a bachelor's degree from the University of Southem California and was subsequently awarded a master’s degree from The George Washington University and a juris doctorate from Georgetown University 4, Thave been admitted to practice Iaw for thirty-three years, I am currently a professor at John Marshall Law School in Atlanta, Georgia, teaching Constitutional Law and a ‘member of the boards of advisors for law reviews at Georgetown University Law Center and the University of Texas Law School. 5. From 1971-1978, 1 was an official with the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America. 6. In 1986 1 was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as the United States Attomey for the Northern District of Georgia and served in that capacity until 1990,7. Iserved as President of Southeastern Legal Foundation from 1990-1991. 8. IL represented the 7" District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, during which time I served as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and I was the 2008 Libertarian Party nomince for President of the United States. 9. From 2003 to 2008, I occupied the 2/" Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union, and am now a member of The Constitution Project's Initiative on Liberty and Security, From 2003 to 2005 I was a member of a projeet at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government addressing matters of privacy and security. I now serve as a board member for Privacy Intemational, a privacy watchdog group headquartered in London. 10. I serve on the boards of directors for the National Rifle Association and 1Force, a company providing domestic and international security, I am a national officer for Tau Kappa Epsilon Fratemity, 11, Thave authored three books: “The Meaning of Is: The Squandered Impeachment and Wasted Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton,” “Patriot Nation: Bob Bart’s Laws of the Universe Volume One,” and “Lessons in Liberty.” 12, I write a weekly column and regular blogs (“The Batr Code”) for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 1 also write occasional pieces for other publications, including various law reviews, and have hosted a nationally-syndicated weekly radio show. I MATERIALS REVIEWED 13, Documents and information which I have considered in forming my opinions in this matter include the following: Arizona State Bar website, webshots attached hereto as Exhibit A; b. Lawyer Discipline Changes Proposed, ARIZONA ATTORNEY, March 2010, attached as Exhibit B; c. May 19,2010 Affidavit of Alexis Pheiffer, attached hereto as Exhibit C;age 4. Rule 18, Standing Committee on Professional Discipline, attached hereto as Exhibit D; and €. Panelist Charles Jones’ May 28, 2010 ruling, attached hereto as Exhibit E. Ul. EXPERT OPINIONS 14, After reviewing the above-listed materials and the relevant case law, it is my expert opinion that requiring Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon, and Rachel Alexander (*Mr, ‘Thomas, et al.”) to respond to complaints that they have not scen violates the State Bar’s rules and procedures and, more importantly, violates Mr. Thomas, ef ai.’s constitutionally-protected due process and equal protection rights. 15. Attomeys have a due process right to be fully informed of the charges against them. The State Bar of Arizona has institutionalized this nationally recognized policy by instituting a rule requiring a written complaint to be lodged prior to the initiation of any ethics investigation. 16. ‘The Supreme Court’s delegation of ethics investigations to Bar Counsel almost certainly carties with it the ability to create administrative rules and procedures in order to carry out that function, 17, Tim Figo, an employee of the Arizona State Bar and the editor of the Bar's trade magazine, ARIZONA ATTORNEY, recently penned an article comparing and contrasting the State Bar’s current disciplinary procedure with proposed changes for the procedure, This article makes it clear that under the current system, which would have been in place at the time of the initiation of the investigations against Mr. Thomas, ef al., the Bar Counsel for the Arizona State Bar may not pursue an investigation into allegations absent a written complaint. 18, This is confirmed by the Arizona State Bar’s website, which publicizes to attorneys and members of the publie alike that a written complaint is the first step in any attorney disciplinary proceeding.