Pinal supervisors escalate feud with county attorney Brad Miller, seek bar investigation

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to file a bar complaint against Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller, the latest development in a tumultuous year of legal disputes over everything from hiring practices to taking on federal immigration enforcement responsibilities. 

During a special session on Friday, supervisors voted 5-0 to authorize its outside attorneys to file a complaint against Miller with the State Bar of Arizona. The State Bar evaluates complaints and can launch investigations if it finds reason to believe an attorney violated professional standards and rules. The Arizona Supreme Court oversees disciplinary action against lawyers if the State Bar believes an attorney’s transgressions deserve formal punishment. 

No mention was made as to why the board decided to pursue a complaint, or what the content of that complaint might be. James Daniels, a spokesman for the board, said that he could not provide further information. Miller’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment. Complaints are confidential unless the State Bar pursues disciplinary action.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

The decision to file the complaint against Miller came after the board met with its attorneys on Sept. 30 during a closed-door executive session. The agenda for Sept. 30 noted that supervisors would seek legal advice about Miller’s “ethical obligations to the Board of Supervisors, his scope of representation, and Arizona Bar requirements in light of various activities, statements and actions made by the County Attorney to or about the Pinal County Board of Supervisors collectively or individually.”

On Friday, Chairman Jeffrey McClure emphasized that the State Bar’s disciplinary process is confidential and that, while charges against Miller may become public record at some point, their content shouldn’t be spoken about until then. 

“This confidentiality during the investigative process is designed to protect the attorney who is the subject of a bar charge, and therefore we should allow that process to play out, per the Arizona Supreme Court rules,” McClure said. 

Vice Chairman Jeff Serdy, who was calling into the meeting remotely, reiterated the confidential nature of the bar complaint process, saying that it prevents supervisors from talking about it. Serdy also deflected responsibility for the possibility that Miller could face professional sanctions, noting that it’s up to the Supreme Court whether Miller is punished.

“People are asking: ‘Why are we doing this? Can we comment on it?’” he said. “Hopefully, the statement that you just made gets picked up by the press or whoever, showing that it is up to the Supreme Court to decide and we are not really doing anything. If there’s (inappropriate) things happening, just be patient and it’ll sort itself out.”

The relationship between Pinal County supervisors and Miller has been fractious since he took office in January 2025, making it unclear which of multiple spats is the source of the complaint. 

In February, the board referred Miller to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes over allegations of misspending public funds and destroying public records after the Republican hired two employees without the board’s authorization and didn’t pay them for several weeks. And in April, supervisors declared that a conflict of interest exists between Miller and the board because the way Miller carries out his office’s law enforcement duties conflicts with his “ethical obligations” to the board. 

The highest profile tiff between Miller and the board was a disagreement over whether the county attorney’s office has the right to enter into an 287(g) agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to look for people who are eligible for deportation. Miller signed his office’s 10 investigators — who are charged with interviewing victims and witnesses to build legal cases for attorneys to prosecute — up for the agreement in August 2025, without notifying the board or requesting their permission. 

County supervisors responded by ordering Miller to terminate the agreement, saying that under Arizona law only the board has the authority to enter into partnerships with the federal government. The county sheriff’s office has its own 287(g) agreement with DHS, which has been in place since 2008 and was renewed by the board at the same meeting in which the supervisors censured Miller. 

Miller doubled down on preserving his agreement with federal immigration authorities and the issue ultimately led to a court battle. In May, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that Miller acted unlawfully.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Courtesy of Arizona Mirror