Redkey v. Clarke,
CV-24-0476

Court of Appeals Decision Update

Redkey v. Clarke, et al. 
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Case No. 1 CA-CV 24-0476 PB

The Arizona Court of Appeals has issued a Memorandum Decision in Redkey v. Clarke, et al., affirming the probate court’s approval of certain professional fees. The Court did not reach the merits of multiple substantive issues raised in the appeal — including conflicts of interest, statutory notice violations, and constitutional concerns — because it concluded those issues were waived for appellate purposes due to actions and omissions of court-appointed counsel (Rick Kilfoy and Daniel J. Mazza) in the trial court.

What the Court Actually Decided

• The Court affirmed the fee approvals at issue.

• The Court relied primarily on procedural waiver, not on findings that the underlying conduct was lawful, ethical, or correct.

• The Court expressly acknowledged that several issues raised by Mr. Redkey were not frivolous, but ruled they could not be reviewed because they were not properly preserved below.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The Court of Appeals did not decide:

• Whether attorney William A. Clarke’s dual representation was lawful or ethical.

• Whether A.R.S. § 14-5109 notice requirements were satisfied.

• Whether the conservatorship was properly established in 2009.

• Whether denial of self-representation in probate violated due process.

• Whether court-appointed counsel’s failure to raise issues caused substantive harm.

Those questions remain unresolved on the merits.

Why This Matters

This decision highlights a structural problem in Arizona’s probate system:
A protected person may be barred from raising non-frivolous legal issues when court-appointed counsel fails—or refuses—to raise them, while the same protected person is simultaneously denied the right to proceed pro se.

In effect, the system can function as a closed loop:

• The court appoints counsel,

• Counsel controls which issues are raised,

• Failure by counsel results in waiver,

• And the protected person has no independent path to judicial review.

Status and Next Steps

• Related appeals and motions remain pending.

• Additional filings address unresolved issues, including the absence of a hearing record from December 9, 2009, statutory notice failures, and conflicts of interest.

• The decision does not preclude future litigation, legislative reform efforts, or public accountability initiatives.

Bottom Line

This ruling was procedural, not exculpatory. It does not validate the conduct challenged in the case. It instead underscores how procedural barriers in probate court can prevent meaningful review—even when serious, non-frivolous issues are identified.

Updates will be posted as further proceedings occur.