In a dramatic turn of events, a former attorney’s legal battle against his previous legal representatives has taken a new direction. Devin Andrich, who was disbarred in 2014 for misconduct including stealing client funds, has filed an appeal against the dismissal of his claims against Bobby O. Thrasher Jr. and his law firm, Thrasher Law, PLLC. The case was filed on January 12, 2026, in the Arizona Court of Appeals following a decision by the Superior Court in Maricopa County.
The roots of this complex legal saga trace back to Andrich’s hiring of Thrasher Jemsek, PLLC—allegedly the predecessor to Thrasher Law—to represent him in criminal proceedings related to misappropriating client funds. The engagement agreement between Andrich and the firm included an arbitration clause for disputes arising from their professional relationship. Despite pleading guilty to charges including fraudulent schemes and being sentenced to prison, Andrich later sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel among other grievances.
Andrich’s subsequent lawsuit against Thrasher alleged various wrongdoings such as aiding in conversion of property and abuse of process related to omitted communications crucial for his defense. However, when Thrasher invoked the arbitration clause from their agreement, Andrich resisted on grounds that some claims arose after their professional relationship ended. The federal court dismissed these claims, leading Andrich to file for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), which was met with refusal from Thrasher citing prior litigation choices by Andrich.
This legal tug-of-war escalated when Andrich brought another action against Thrasher seeking punitive damages and alleging breaches including failure to withdraw from post-sentencing matters and improper handling of confidential communications. The Superior Court dismissed several claims but acknowledged that others should be referred to arbitration per their original agreement. However, both parties have contested these rulings; Andrich appealed the dismissal while Thrasher cross-appealed against referring any claims to arbitration.
In reviewing these appeals, Judge Kent E. Cattani noted that while some claims were dismissed without prejudice allowing for potential re-filing or arbitration initiation by Andrich within three months—an opportunity he did not pursue—the court also failed to address arbitrability comprehensively before dismissing other merits-based claims with prejudice.
The case is now remanded back for further proceedings where key issues will include determining whether any waiver or estoppel prevents enforcing the arbitration clause given past litigation conduct by both parties. This remand aims at ensuring all aspects concerning enforceability are adequately addressed before deciding if matters proceed through judicial channels or binding arbitration.
Representing himself pro se is Devin Andrich while Bobby O. Thrasher Jr., through his firm Thrasher Law PLLC defends against these allegations alongside Judge Christopher A Coury presiding over initial hearings under Case ID No CV2022-010194.
Source: 1CACV250112_Andrich_v_Thrasher_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
