Local attorney Douglas Schumacher has been reprimanded by the State Bar of Arizona (SBA) for actions in violation of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.

According to the report filed by the SBA, Schumacher acted inappropriately while working with a local client (complainant), in late 2020. At that time, Schumacher contacted the complainant’s adult daughter (26) by text. In a charge filed with the SBA, the complainant stated Schumacher began requesting an inappropriate photo exchange with his daughter. He further claimed that interactions with Schumacher and the case outcome were not acceptable after his daughter ignored Schumacher’s advances, leaving her to “feel like she had done something wrong.”

The complainant filed his charge with the SBA in Nov. 2021 and an investigation was conducted. A final judgment and order was filed on June 7, 2022, stating the judge had accepted the parties’ Agreement for Discipline by Consent and that “the parties agree that a reprimand, probation and payment of costs is appropriate.”

Schumacher said he represented the complainant for over a one-year period, wherein he reached a settlement which was accepted by his client.

“During a very brief period of time during the representation – a period of just over two weeks – I sent inappropriate text messages to the client’s representative during the litigation,” Schumacher said. “I apologized for sending the inappropriate text messages and proceeded to achieve a settlement for clients which was approved by the complainant. The matter was brought to the attention of the State Bar of Arizona after I was unwilling to take on another case for complainant.

“This admittedly inappropriate and unprofessional conduct by me did not result in any finding that my representation negatively impacted my legal representation nor the results obtained. Nevertheless, my brief lapse of judgment was inappropriate, and I have cooperated with the State Bar of Arizona to resolve and prevent such situation from occurring in the future.”

Final judgment

The report noted two aggravating circumstances when determining consequences, including the vulnerability of the victim and the substantial experience in the practice of law, as Schumacher was admitted to the SBA in 1989. Three mitigating factors were also noted, including full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, remorse and remoteness of Schumacher’s only other prior offense (a 2007 infraction).

Schumacher was determined to be in violation of Rule 41(b)(7) and placed on probation for 18 months. He was also ordered to pay the State Bar’s costs and expenses in the sum of $1,200 and complete the SBA’s “Professionalism Course.”

The complainant has objected to this penalty, however, saying it does not go far enough and citing that his daughter “feels horrible and disgraced” by Schumacher’s actions.

Despite the complainant’s objection to the disciplinary actions, the report stated the end result was proper.

“[The complainant’s] sentiment is understandable, and Mr. Schumacher’s conduct was entirely inappropriate,” the report reads. “The question becomes whether the stipulated sanctions fulfill the purpose of attorney discipline, as recognized by our supreme court.”

It was noted that such discipline serves two purposes, to protect the public and the courts and to deter the attorney and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct.

“The objective is not to punish the offender,” the report continues. “The State Bar reports that, from the outset of the disciplinary proceedings, Mr. Schumacher has acknowledged that his conduct was inappropriate, and he has expressed remorse for it. Under the circumstances, the PDJ [presiding disciplinary judge] concludes that the stipulated sanctions will adequately protect the public and deter similar misconduct by Mr. Schumacher and other attorneys.”