News

Dennis the Menace

Continued from page 4

Hammond didn't see that he had a choice.

It is hard to believe that Maricopa County's citizens are being well-served by the refusal to provide documents that could demonstrate whether basic human rights are being granted in the county's jails.

"I kick myself for waiting so long," Hammond says of the sanctions request. "I think we should have done it earlier."

More than a year later Judge Earl Carroll has not ruled.

As of mid-December, Wilenchik had billed the county more than $85,000 for work performed on Hart vs. Hill since December 2005.

If the county ever releases a full accounting of Wilenchik's billings, it might be possible to better determine the quality of his civil work on behalf of the taxpayers.

It is already certain that his criminal work was subpar.

And even his friend Grant Woods doesn't understand why Andrew Thomas named Wilenchik special prosecutor in the criminal case against New Times. (It's hard to know what was behind the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors' decision on July 11, when they approved Thomas' choice, because the meeting — an emergency session held by telephone — was not tape recorded.)

"I honestly have no idea why he was brought in on this special prosecution," Woods says. "He's done excellent work on the civil side and he really hasn't done criminal law in a long time."

For the record, Woods also questions why Bill French was brought in, "at this stage in his career."

Jim Eckley, the construction defect plaintiff attorney who has gone up against Wilenchik many times, says that it may well be that what makes Wilenchik such a good civil lawyer actually hurt him in the criminal arena.

"I hate to say it, but delay and obfuscation on the DEFENSE side is fairly common in civil litigation," Eckley writes in an e-mail. "It is part of a strategy of burning out the plaintiff as, remember, in a civil claim, the plaintiff must prevail to win and on all points whereas defense must merely poke holes in a few places and the wind all goes out. Moreover, the defense wins merely by not losing. That can be done by long delays and large smoke screens."

And it can be done with very broad requests, as with the overreaching subpoenas in the New Times case.

". . . it is probably MALPRACTICE in civil litigation NOT to seek the broadest possible 'discovery' of what the other guy might have," Eckley adds.

French agrees that there is a big difference between civil and criminal litigation. He sat through the Dan Saban case, and offers only high praise for Wilenchik's work there.

"He's a very fine trial lawyer," French says of Wilenchik, adding, "That's saying a lot."

But criminal law is far different, French acknowledges. As a trial judge, he says, he found, "There's a big difference not only in the law but how you present it. I think a jury reacts differently in criminal than they do in civil . . . They're more concerned about a person's liberty and the sanctions on the criminal side are generally considered to be much more serious."

So, French is asked at the end of the conversation, is Dennis Wilenchik a good person?

"I think he is," French says.

No one in town questions French's character or credentials.

"I've worked very hard to achieve that," he says. "This is not a time in my life when I want to tarnish it, though."

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5