The spreadsheet was created by Flagstaff Tea Party Editor Dan Frazier prior to the writing of his story about Ellen Seaborne published in March 2002. The spreadsheet was designed to help identify patterns in the allegations of former clients and others who have had dealings with Seaborne. The version of the spreadsheet posted on this Web site has been modified substantially; much information has been omitted in an effort to protect the identities of some individuals who provided information. Many individuals feared retribution from Seaborne and asked that their names not be published.

The information contained in this spreadsheet was collected through interviews, questionnaires, and a partial review of complaint records at the Arizona State Bar. The information in this spreadsheet does not reflect additional information that has come to light since the story was published.

Classes of people

The following explanations relate to some of the classes of people whose information is collected on the spreadsheet. These persons are grouped below the black bars, and color coded to make their class more recognizable. Note that everyone who contributed to the story is NOT included in the spreadsheet. However, the people represented on the spreadsheet include the bulk of those who contributed substantively to the story, and are representative of the types of people who contributed. Also, note that not everyone included in the spreadsheet filed a complaint.:

Client Complainants: Former clients of  Ellen Seaborne who have filed complaints with the Arizona State Bar.

Unhappy client noncomplainants: Former clients of Ellen Seaborne who have not filed complaints with the Arizona State Bar. 

Opposing client complainants: Former clients of other attorneys who were involved in litigation in which Seaborne was the opposing attorney. These people filed complaints against Seaborne.

Satisfied folks: People who spoke highly of Ellen Seaborne during interviews.

Others: “Rene”: “Rene” provided confidential documents described in the story and posted elsewhere on this Web site.

Column headings

Name of individual: Names are withheld for some individuals, either because they asked not to be identified, or because it was assumed that they would not want to be publicly identified. However, the complaint files of most of these individuals are public record and can be viewed at the Arizona State Bar. A number appears beside the names of some individuals. For instance, “Diana Royce 5.” This indicates Royce initially filed a joint complaint with 4 others. In the case of Shari Curry, Seaborne apparently provided the Bar with a single response that addressed not only Curry’s complaint, but also the complaints of two other unrelated individuals whom Curry claims not to know. Thus a “3” appears besides Curry’s name because her complaint somehow became entangled with that of two other individuals. A key portion of the Curry complaint records have been sealed and are not available for public inspection. These numbers should not be confused with the numbers beside “Name Withheld” labels, which are merely used to differentiate the various anonymous individuals.

File No.: This is the file number used to track complaints by the Arizona State Bar.  In many cases, this information has been omitted from the spreadsheet to protect identities.

Date complaint filed: In many cases, this information has been omitted from the spreadsheet to protect identities.

Date Bar closed file: In most cases it is not clear from the documents obtained by FTP when the bar stopped investigating a given complaint, and closed the file.

Individual completed questionnaire: Did the individual complete the questionnaire prepared by FTP?

Individual interviewed by FTP: Was the individual interviewed by FTP? In some cases, individuals were interviewed by e-mail.

OK to publish name: Should the person’s name be included in a published story?

OK to publish details: Should the details of the person’s life or experiences with Ellen Seaborne be made public?

Interest in a class action: Did the person express an interest in a class action lawsuit against Ellen Seaborne? The answers to this question have been omitted from this spreadsheet. However, 11 individuals expressed an interest in participating in legal action. Some individuals were not asked this question.

Age then: What was the approximate age of the individual when dealing with Seaborne?

Education: This is the estimated education of the individual. No clear pattern emerged in this area, and the estimates are omitted.

Income: Most of the individuals had low or medium incomes, though a few had higher incomes. This information is omitted.

Occupation: Current or former occupation of the individual.

Relation to E.S.: Relationship to Ellen Seaborne.

Type of case: What type of case was Seaborne working on when dealing with the individual?

Date started with E.S.: Usually the date the individual hired Seaborne. In many cases, this information has been omitted from the spreadsheet to protect identities.

Date ended with E.S.: Usually the date the individual fired Seaborne, or the date Seaborne withdrew her services. In many cases, this information has been omitted from the spreadsheet to protect identities.

Domestic violence victim: Was the individual a victim of domestic violence? This question was an afterthought. Most individuals were not asked about this. Though at least 4 individuals mentioned a history of domestic violence, no clear pattern emerged. This information has been omitted.

Employed by Ellen: Was the individual ever an Ellen Seaborne employee? At least three individuals worked in Seaborne’s office at one time or another.

Fired E.S.: Did the individual fire Ellen Seaborne? See note below.

E.S. Quit: Did Seaborne withdraw her services? In several cases it is not clear whether the individual quit or Seaborne withdrew. The firing and/or quitting often seemed to have happened almost simultaneously. In some cases, the sequence of events appears to be in dispute.

Number of prior attorneys: The number of attorneys the individual had retained prior to hiring Seaborne. This is relevant because Seaborne sometimes alleged that a disgruntled former client had had several prior attorneys, and therefore must be a troublesome client, or gets along poorly with lawyers. In fact, few Seaborne clients had actually used another attorney prior to Seaborne in the matter for which Seaborne was hired.

Number of attorneys after E.S.: How many attorneys did the individual use to resolve the matter they had originally hired Seaborne to resolve?

Satisfaction with subsequent atty.: Was the individual satisfied with the representation of the attorney they hired after they stopped working with Seaborne?

Represented self after E.S.: Did the individual have to represent themselves in court after they stopped working with Ellen Seaborne? This usually means they could not afford legal representation in court.

Result of legal work by E.S.: What was the result of legal work Ellen Seaborne did for the individual?

E.S. suggested bankruptcy: Did Ellen Seaborne suggest bankruptcy to the individual?

Individual has filed bankruptcy: Has the individual actually filed bankruptcy?

Likely to file bankruptcy: Is the individual likely to file bankruptcy?

Blames E.S. for bankruptcy: Does the individual blame E.S. for his or her bankruptcy (past, current or upcoming)?

Alleged R. 42 violations.: Which specific section(s) of Rule 42, Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, did the individual allege that Seaborne violated in their complaint to the Bar? Rule 42 is posted on the Web site of the Arizona State Bar. The section is listed in the spreadsheet only if it was specifically mentioned by the individual. Eight individuals cited specific sections of the rule. Some of these citations are not shown on the spreadsheet to protect identities. No attempt has been made by FTP to identify sections of the rule corresponding to specific allegations.

Possible R. 42 violations Bar identified: Which specific section(s) of Rule 42, Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, did the Arizona State Bar identify as possibly having been violated by Seaborne, and question Seaborne about? In one case, this information has been omitted from the spreadsheet to protect identities. Rule 42 is posted on the Web site of the Arizona State Bar.

R. 42 violations: Which specific section(s) of Rule 42, Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, did the Arizona State Bar determine Seaborne likely violated? Rule 42 is posted on the Web site of the Arizona State Bar. No information has been omitted from this column.

No service: Does the individual allege Ellen Seaborne provided no service?

Minimal service: Does the individual allege Ellen Seaborne provided minimal service?

Lack of communication: Does the individual allege that Ellen Seaborne failed to communicate adequately with them?

E.S. lied in court: Does the individual allege that Ellen Seaborne lied in court?

E.S. lied to bar: Does the individual allege that Ellen Seaborne lied to the Arizona State Bar?

E.S. lied to client: Does the individual allege that Ellen Seaborne lied to them, her own client?

E.S. instructed client to lie: Does the individual allege that Ellen Seaborne instructed them to lie in court or to another person?

Other dishonesty: This is a catch-all for vague allegations of dishonesty, etc against Ellen Seaborne.

E.S. documents contradictory: Perhaps the most obvious instance of Seaborne appearing to contradict herself in writing is in the case of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for client Shari Curry. Curry’s bills from Seaborne show time was spent on the QDRO. Later, in written correspondence, Seaborne defends her lack of action with regard to the QDRO by alleging that Curry never asked for assistance with the QDRO. There were other instances in which Seaborne documents appear to be contradictory, though these were not necessarily noted in the spreadsheet.

Number of continuances: How many continuances, or reschedulings of court dates, were there while the individual was working with Seaborne?

Billing irregularities: Does the individual allege any billing irregularities on Seaborne’s part, such as fee padding, double billing, billing for services not rendered, etc.?

E.S. continued work after asked to stop: Did Ellen Seaborne continue to do work for the individual after the individual asked her to stop working on his or her behalf?

E.S. admitted wrongdoing to bar: Did Ellen Seaborne admit any wrongdoing to the Arizona State Bar? Seaborne rarely if ever acknowledged any wrongdoing in response to accusations brought against her. However, in at least one case she blamed another employee in her office.

E.S. admitted wrongdoing to individual: Did Ellen Seaborne admit any wrongdoing to the individual? Such admissions appear to be exceedingly rare, though in one case a paralegal in her office (Mattie Westbrook) told Shari Curry a mistake had been made, though the paralegal allegedly later denied ever having made the statement. In another case, Seaborne wrote off half of a client’s bill, though Seaborne did not necessarily admit to wrongdoing.

Afraid of E.S.: Is the individual afraid of Ellen Seaborne taking legal action against them for speaking to the press, filing a complaint, etc.?

Alleges E.S. hates men: At least two individuals suggested that Ellen Seaborne hates men, though another individual felt Seaborne hates women. This question was an afterthought and many individuals were not asked about this.

E.S. level of involvement: How involved was Ellen Seaborne in the individual’s case?

E.S. was prepared for court: Did the individual feel Seaborne was prepared for court?

E.S. competence: Did the individual feel Seaborne was a competent attorney?

Ethics score: Did the individual feel that Seaborne behaved ethically in their case? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

E.S. honesty score.: Did the individual feel that Seaborne behaved honestly in their case? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

E.S. takes direction score: Did the individual feel that Seaborne respected their wishes, directions and priorities in their case? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

E.S. effectiveness score: Did the individual feel that Seaborne advocated effectively on behalf of her clients? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

E.S. communication score: Did the individual feel that Seaborne kept them adequately informed about their case? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

E.S. law knowledge score: Did the individual feel that Seaborne was familiar with the law? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

E.S. Billing practices: How did the individual rate Seaborne’s billing practices? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

Efficiancy score: Did the individual feel that Seaborne was efficient or was able to handle their case in a timely manner? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

Courtroom demeanor score: How did the individual rate Seaborne’s courtroom demeanor and speaking ability? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

Compassion score: How did the individual rate Seaborne’s compassion or concern for them and their welfare? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

Appropriately aggressive score: How did the individual rate Seaborne’s aggressiveness in pursuing legal objectives on behalf of her clients? Those who completed a questionnaire ranked this item from 1 to 5, with 1 being a low or unsatisfactory rating, 5 being a high or very satisfactory rating.

E.S. threatened to quit over fees: Did Seaborne ever threaten to withdraw from the individual’s case due to the individual’s failure to pay, etc.?

E.S. threatened litigation over fee: Did Seaborne ever threaten the individual with a lawsuit due to the individual’s failure to pay, etc.?

Fees much higher than expected: Were Seaborne’s legal fees much higher than the individual expected?

E.S. motivated by money: Did the individual feel that Seaborne was primarily motivated by a desire to get more money?

Discrepancies in complaint between E.S. and complainant: Did Seaborne’s account of events provided to the Arizona State Bar differ significantly from that provided by the individual in their complaint to the Bar?

E.S. discredits complainant: Did Seaborne try to discredit the individual in correspondence with the Arizona State Bar?

E.S. blames complainant: Did Seaborne try to blame the individual for problems in their case in correspondence with the Arizona State Bar?

E.S. says complainant is lying: Did Seaborne accuse the individual of lying or making a false statement in correspondence with the Arizona State Bar?

Individual is emotionally scarred: Does it seem that the individual has been emotionally scarred or traumatized by his or her experiences with Seaborne?

Fees paid with costs: Amount the individual actually paid to Seaborne. In several cases, this information has been omitted from the spreadsheet to protect identities.

Fees owed (unpaid): Amount Seaborne said that the individual stilled owed. In several cases, this information has been omitted from the spreadsheet to protect identities.

Status of balance due: What was the status of the fees that were still owed to Seaborne?

Words used to describe E.S.: What notable words did the individual use to describe Ellen Seaborne?

Bar representative: Name of the person at the Arizona State Bar who handled the individual’s complaint. In several cases, this information has been omitted from the spreadsheet to protect identities. Though one person, Amy A. Rehm, appears to have handled most of the complaints against Seaborne, others at the Bar also handled some complaints against Seaborne, and there is no clear pattern suggesting that the Bar’s response to complaints against Seaborne varied depending on who was handling the complaint.

Bar complaint investigated: Was the complaint investigated? That is, did the Bar find that an ethical violation was alleged in the complaint, and did the Bar ask Seaborne to respond to the accusation(s).

Sent to probable cause panelist: Based on the evidence in the complaint, and Seaborne’s response, any additional correspondence from the complainant, etc., did the Bar find that there was enough evidence of a possible ethical violation to warrant the matter be reviewed by the Bar’s probable cause panelist?

Desired result of complaint: What did the complainant hope to accomplish through his or her complaint?

Result of complaint: What was the actual result of the complaint?

Desired punishment: What punishment did the individual hope the Bar would impose on Seaborne?

Satisfied with Bar: Was the individual satisfied with the Bar’s response to their complaint?

Aware of E.S. response to Bar: Did the individual ever see Seaborne’s response to their complaint?