STATE BAR OF ARIZONA – REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

 

1) Complainant Information

Name: 
Role: Defendant/Counter-Claimant in Maricopa County Superior Court matter CV2024-019709
Address: 
Phone: 
Email:

​

2) Respondent Attorney Information

Attorney: Gina E. Carrillo (AZ Bar No. 030579)
Firm: Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C.
Address: 40 N. Central Ave., 20th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85004
Email: gcarrillo@gblaw.com

 

3) Matter Information

Court Case: Maricopa County Superior Court – CV2024-019709
Case Caption: Knight Refrigerated LLC v. ********, et al. (as reflected on court/turbocourt notifications)
Judge: Frank Moskowitz (as shown on case page screenshot)
General Subject: Trucking lease/contract dispute; counterclaims include misclassification/unpaid wages type issues (as reflected in early strategy emails).

 

4) Summary of Complaint (What I am asking the Bar to review)

I request that the State Bar investigate whether Respondent’s conduct violated the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 42, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.), including (by way of example) duties of competence, diligence, communication, reasonableness/clarity of fees, candor in describing the status of work, and proper withdrawal.

At a high level, my complaint is that:

1. A major procedural error consumed months of time and substantial billing on a “default / amended counterclaim” track that the Court later stated was not properly before it due to Rule 15 / operative pleading requirements.

2. After the Court identified the procedural defect, Respondent refused any fee review/credit, reframed the issue as mere “litigation risk,” and then moved to withdraw, characterizing the situation as a “breakdown” tied to fees/retainer—despite the fact I did not refuse to pay in general, and I asked to resolve the fee/credit issue first.

3. The firm held my original $2,500 retainer in trust without drawing it down, while I separately paid invoices; yet Respondent repeatedly used urgent retainer demands at time-sensitive moments as leverage, including withholding/conditioning filing steps near deadlines.

4. I was placed into multiple “take it or leave it” situations—first with a last-minute rate increase immediately before engagement, and later with a last-minute retainer demand tied to a looming dismissal deadline and planned filing date.

5. I am concerned this mismanaged track may have prejudiced potential claims elsewhere, including a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) path I had already initiated by notice letter before the Arizona litigation began.

 

5) Key Court Finding / Why I believe the “default track” was non-operative

At the February 2026 default hearing (and confirmed in the February 19, 2026 Minute Entry), the Court indicated the amended counterclaims were not properly before the Court because there was no operative pleading, and that the amended counterclaim required compliance with Rule 15 (leave to amend). The Minute Entry includes language to the effect of:

• “there is no operative pleading,” and

• the filing was “effectively an Amended Counterclaim which must be filed in compliance with Rule 15.”

My concern is not simply that a judge “disagreed with our position.” My concern is that the track itself was procedurally defective from the ground up (i.e., the Court considered there to be no operative pleading before it), yet I was billed for months of work and hearing preparation associated with that track.

 

6) Detailed Timeline / Facts

A. Engagement and initial “take it or leave it” rate change (Jan 2025)

• Early January 2025: I was facing an imminent deadline and needed counsel quickly.

• Jan 13, 2025 (email from Respondent): Respondent wrote that she “might have misquoted” her hourly rate on the phone and that she was notified it changed to $425/hour, and she would have an engagement letter sent if I wanted to proceed.

• This effectively presented me with a last-minute choice: accept the higher rate immediately or lose the ability to hire counsel in time.

B. Retainer clarity / shifting understanding (2025–2026)

• I paid a $2,500 retainer early in the engagement.

• I understood the retainer as a security deposit / draw-down arrangement based on conversations and how billing generally works in many matters; however Respondent later asserted the engagement was not draw-down and that the retainer would apply to the final bill.

• Trust Ledger (produced March 2026): The ledger shows the $2,500 deposit remained in trust and was not withdrawn.

• During the representation I paid invoices directly (separately from the trust balance). After several invoices, I tried to apply part of the $2,500 retainer toward an invoice because Respondent had indicated that was an option after the first few bills. However, Respondent/firm then explained that if any portion of the retainer was applied to an invoice, I would have to replenish the trust balance back to $2,500 immediately as a condition of continuing work. In other words, using the retainer would not reduce my out-of-pocket payment — it would simply add extra steps (apply retainer → then pay to replenish).

At the time Respondent later stated I needed to be “up to date” on billing (July 2025 email), that invoice was not yet paid — but the delay was administrative, caused by the retainer-use back-and-forth and the time required to move funds into the account I could use to pay the firm via Zelle. The trust funds remained untouched, yet the matter was characterized as being on hold until the invoice was paid. This back-and-forth is a key example of the retainer terms being unclear and shifting in practice.

This was before any demand for an additional $7,500/$10,000 retainer increase.

C. June 2025 filing contained a clear caption error (“Maricopa of Maricopa”)

• June 2025: Respondent sent/used a draft caption that read “MARICOPA OF MARICOPA” rather than “County of Maricopa.”

• When I asked about correction/filing, I did not get a clear, confident answer about whether it was filed that way and how it would be fixed.

• I did not catch the caption problem at the time because I was reading substance, not policing the court header.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D. July–August 2025: “case on hold,” billing pressure, and dismissal calendar

• July 9, 2025 email: Respondent wrote the case was “kind of in a hold,” stated she had not seen an updated answer, and said that to continue forward I needed to be “up to date on [my] bill.”

• Aug 19, 2025 email: Respondent wrote nothing had happened and suggested Knight was waiting for us to file an application for default.

• Aug 20, 2025 email: Respondent notified me the case had been placed on the dismissal calendar with action required by Oct 20, 2025 to avoid dismissal without prejudice, and stated the choices were settlement outreach or default.

E. Sept–Oct 2025: Retainer pressure tied to deadline and filing

• Sept 29, 2025 email: Respondent sent a draft default application and introduced the demand that the retainer be increased to $10,000 (not applied until the final bill, per her description).

• We had a limited window due to the dismissal-calendar deadline.

• I reviewed the draft and approved it (Oct 10, 2025) to meet the planned timing.

• Oct 11, 2025: Respondent stated she needed an additional $7,500 immediately to proceed with preparing and filing the application, even though the document had already been drafted and time was short.

• I pushed back because a deadline was approaching and I believed withholding filing could prejudice my case.

• Oct 16, 2025: The Application for Default was e-filed (per TurboCourt courtesy notification and court docket entries).

F. Time consumed on the default/amendment track (Oct 2025 → Feb 2026 hearing)

• From at least Oct 2025 through Feb 2026, the case proceeded along a default-related track.

   

• I participated in preparation efforts (including a prep call the day before the hearing).

   

• Default hearing preparation was framed as a “mini-trial” requiring extensive billing that did not match the Court’s scheduling materials. Respondent advised that if default were entered, the hearing could immediately become a “mini-trial” on damages and required extensive live testimony and exhibit work. Respondent estimated 20+ hours of preparation and also proposed adding another attorney to assist, with shifting descriptions of who that would be and at what rate (at one point described as an associate billed at a lower rate, later offering a separate attorney at a substantially higher rate as a “default expert”).

   

• However, the Court’s scheduling materials I received did not indicate the hearing would be a mini-trial or otherwise suggest the extensive scope Respondent described. Despite that, Respondent proceeded on a high-prep posture. I pushed back on unnecessary preparation and declined additional counsel, which reduced the amount of billed time I would have otherwise incurred.

   

• At the hearing, the matter was disposed of immediately on the procedural issue (leave to amend / no operative pleading) before any substantive presentation.

• In hindsight, my pushback likely prevented even more unnecessary billing tied to a track the Court found procedurally non-operative. This is a key reason I requested a fee review/credit before approving any additional retainer deposit.

 

G. February 2026: Court identifies the operative pleading / Rule 15 problem

• Feb 19, 2026 Minute Entry: Court stated there was “no operative pleading” and that the filing was effectively an amended counterclaim requiring Rule 15 compliance.

• After this, Respondent advised narrowing claims and contacting opposing counsel about amendment, and simultaneously demanded a retainer increase.

H. March 2026: Fee review request, refusal, and withdrawal

• I asked for a fee review / credit before any retainer increase because the Court identified a procedural defect that, in my view, made the billed work non-viable.

• I did not say “I will never pay.” I said I was not approving a $10,000 retainer increase until fee-credit issues were addressed and the case posture was corrected.

• Importantly: I was never sent an invoice/line-item bill for a “retainer increase.” It was demanded only via email comments, yet later framed as nonpayment/financial failure.

• Respondent refused any credit and claimed an adverse ruling does not make fees refundable.

• Motion to Withdraw filed (March 2026): Respondent’s motion states an “irreconcilable breakdown” and references financial issues/fees.

• This withdrawal timing materially harmed me by making me appear financially depleted/off-balance to opposing counsel and forced me into emergency pro se filings.

I. Firm-level review request ignored

• On March 9, 2026, I emailed Grady Gammage Jr. and Richard B. Burnham requesting firm-level review and reassignment/fee review.

• I did not receive a response before Respondent proceeded with withdrawal steps.

J. Potential prejudice to Texas DTPA backup path

• Prior to the Arizona lawsuit, I was pursuing a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act angle and had counsel send a notice letter dated April 18, 2024.

• I told Respondent multiple times I wanted to keep Texas options as a backup.

• Given the time spent on the non-operative Arizona default track, I am concerned delay may have contributed to me losing time on the Texas statute of limitations window (I understand DTPA is often treated as a two-year limitation, though accrual can be disputed). Even if uncertain, this was a known risk that should have been managed transparently and strategically.

K. Communications / “professional courtesy” to opposing counsel

• Respondent granted opposing counsel “professional courtesy” and made certain items appear “unopposed” (per docket descriptions) without meaningful consultation with me beforehand, while simultaneously using leverage tactics against me on my own filings/financial demands.

• I also object to how my contact information (including my business email/name) was handled and disclosed through filings/e-service without addressing known concerns about Knight’s prior efforts to track me down and contact third parties.

 

7) Why I believe this implicates Rule 42 / Arizona ethics rules (non-exhaustive)

I understand the Bar will determine which rules apply, but I request review under rules such as:

• ER 1.1 (Competence): The Court’s “no operative pleading / Rule 15” finding suggests a fundamental procedural failure that undermined months of work.

• ER 1.3 (Diligence): Periods of inactivity combined with dismissal calendar placement; delay and deadline-driven crisis management.

• ER 1.4 (Communication): Failure to provide clear answers on key issues (e.g., caption error and whether/what was filed, retainer mechanics shifting over time, and decisions labeled “unopposed”).

• ER 1.5 (Fees): Reasonableness and transparency of billing tied to a track the Court found procedurally non-operative; using last-minute retainer demands to condition urgent filings; no formal invoice for the retainer increase while later framing this as financial failure/refusal.

• ER 1.16 (Declining/Terminating Representation): Withdrawal after a fee dispute—where client sought review first—creating prejudice and forcing emergency pro se filings; framing of reasons in withdrawal papers.

• ER 8.4 / related provisions (Misrepresentation / conduct prejudicial): Characterizing the Court’s finding as mere “litigation risk” rather than acknowledging an operative-pleading defect; representing that I “refused” to pay when my position was “not approving an increase until credits are addressed.”

Again, I’m not asking the Bar to decide my civil case—only to determine whether the attorney’s handling, billing posture, and withdrawal conduct complied with ethical obligations.

 

8) Harm / Prejudice

• Months of time and significant billing on a track later rejected as procedurally non-operative.

• Forced into pro se emergency filings to preserve my position against counsel’s withdrawal.

• Increased litigation vulnerability and strategic disadvantage with Knight due to appearance of financial depletion and disruption.

• Potential loss of time and leverage on Texas DTPA / other claims due to prolonged detours.

• Repeated deadline-adjacent “pay now or we won’t file” pressure that a reasonable client would interpret as coercive and prejudicial.

 

9) What I am asking the State Bar to do

1. Investigate Respondent’s conduct for compliance with Rule 42 / Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.

2. Obtain and review the relevant court filings, communications, and billing records to evaluate whether the work billed was competently pursued and accurately described to the client.

3. Review whether the withdrawal motion’s characterization of the dispute fairly reflects the client’s actual position (requesting fee review/credit first, not a blanket refusal).

4. If applicable, advise me of any consumer/fee dispute avenues (I understand the Bar discipline process differs from fee arbitration).

 

10) Exhibits (NOT ATTACHED — AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)

• I can provide the following documents promptly if requested by Bar Counsel. I am listing them here to show what exists, but I am not attaching them at this time due to volume:

• Exhibit A: Feb. 19, 2026 Minute Entry (Court states “no operative pleading” / Rule 15 compliance required).

• Exhibit B: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed by Gammage & Burnham (and any supporting declaration).

• Exhibit C: Trust Ledger showing $2,500 retainer deposit and no withdrawals (balance remained).

• Exhibit D: Jan. 13, 2025 email reflecting last-minute rate change to $425/hour (“misquoted” then “firm changed it”).

• Exhibit E: June 2025 draft/filing showing “MARICOPA OF MARICOPA” caption issue and related email chain.

• Exhibit F: July 9, 2025 email stating case on hold and requiring me to be up to date on bill to continue.

• Exhibit G: Aug 20, 2025 dismissal calendar notice and email chain discussing Oct 20, 2025 deadline.

• Exhibit H: Sept 29–Oct 16, 2025 email chain re default application, retainer demand, and filing timing; TurboCourt courtesy notification showing delivery/filing.

• Exhibit I: Emails regarding default-hearing preparation being framed as a potential “mini-trial,” estimated 20+ hours of prep, proposals to add additional counsel (including a higher-rate “default expert”), and my written pushback/decision to decline additional counsel to reduce unnecessary billing.

• Exhibit J: Respondent’s written refusal of any credit/adjustment and statement that adverse ruling ≠ improper work; followed by intent to withdraw.

• Exhibit K: My written request for fee review/credit first and statement I was not approving the retainer increase “until other issues are addressed.”

• Exhibit L: Firm-level review request email to Grady Gammage Jr. and Richard B. Burnham (March 9, 2026) and lack of response.

• Exhibit M: Texas counsel DTPA notice letter dated April 18, 2024 and related background.

• Exhibit N: My filed Response/Limited Objection to Motion to Withdraw (and Proposed Order as modified) demonstrating emergency pro se action taken to protect my position.

 

Verification

I certify that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and based on the documents and emails described. I can provide the listed exhibits upon request.

Respectfully submitted,

3/23/2026