On November 28, 2022, the Presiding Disciplinary judge of the Arizona Supreme Court reprimanded attorney Kina Harding over a case of misrepresentation. 

The Case is entitled “In the matter of Kina Harding” with Case No. PDJ 2022-9040.

The charges cited Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona – ER 3.1, ER 8.1(a), ER 8.4(c), and ER 8.4(d), which state:

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein unless there is a good faith basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which may include a good faith and nonfrivolous argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

A lawyer shall not “knowingly make a false statement of material fact.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

On different occasions, while handling a client, the respondent allegedly committed dishonesty and misconduct. Ms. Harding allegedly made numerous false statements in different contexts. Moreover,  the complaint alleged that Ms. Harding entered into a written contract for payment with GE Money Bank and failed to make payments as required by the contract. 

The filing states:

“On August 3, 2021, Ms. Harding filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena in the Highland Justice Court that included the following statements: Ms. Harding learned about this 2014 lawsuit on July 26, 2021, when she received a copy of this subpoena in the mail. Ms. Harding contemporaneously filed a Motion to Vacate the judgment, as with no prior knowledge of the suit and no relationship with the creditor, Ms. Harding does not believe this to be a valid suit. As Ms. Harding only recently became aware of this matter, justice does not require a party to reveal such sensitive information until a party has proven unwilling to address the matter. Fach of the above-quoted statements was false. Even ignoring the personal service effectuated on January 10, 2015, Ms. Harding indisputably knew about the Skystreak litigation by February of 2017, when she began communicating with the Vaughan law firm about it.”

The filing continues:

“Also on August 3, 2021, Ms. Harding filed a “Motion to Vacate Judgement si] (pursuant to ARSCP 16) and Motion to Set an Order to Show Cause.” She argued therein:”Skystreak, nor GE Money appear on any of Ms. Harding s credit reports.” This was a knowingly false statement. The February 6, 2017 credit report Ms. Harding obtained included the Skystreak judgment on the first page, which prompted her to begin communicating with the Vaughan law firm less than two weeks later.”

The filing further states:

“ In her response to the bar charge, Ms. Harding “fully acknowledges that she made inaccurate and imprecise statements” and concedes that, “in reviewing all the materials in the file together, it appears that Ms. Harding should have known her statements were incorrect. She testified, though that her misrepresentations were negligent. The hearing panel did not find this testimony to be credible or consistent with the evidence of record.”

With clear and convincing evidence, the hearing panel orders that Ms. Harding is reprimanded for her conduct in violation of the aforementioned Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona.

As of today, Ms. Harding is listed on the website of the law firm The Harding Firm as a practicing attorney. Her info can be found on Linkedin. She attended Pepperdine Law, graduating in 2006. Harding practices in Mesa, Arizona with license #28129.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.