Make Bar Complaints Public – At Least to Other Lawyers

As many of my fellow bloggers and readers know, I’m no fan of bar disciplinary programs.  Among other things, I believe that the bars disproportionally target solos and pursue sanctions for trivial infractions while sometimes failing to seriously investigate real dangers. That’s why many may be surprised to learn that after seeing ABA’s 2003 statistics on bar disciplinary proceedings mentioned by my blogger-colleagues Bob Ambrogi and Ben Cowgill, my first reaction was that all 119,863 of these complaints should be made available for review by other attorneys.  Here’s why.

According to a quote at Ben’s site from the Washington Times:

The ABA survey showed 119,863 complaints against lawyers were received in 2003 by disciplinary agencies.

More than 62,000 complaints were summarily dismissed because they did not state facts that would constitute professional misconduct, or because the agency otherwise lacked jurisdiction, the ABA said.

Of the remaining 83,000, another 45,000 were dismissed after formal investigation. Formal charges were warranted in response to 79,150 complaints, and actually were brought during the year against 2,912 lawyers.”

There’s an awful lot of information in all of those complaints that could help lawyers better comply with ethics rules and avoid violations – if only the information were accessible.

And imagine the benefits if the ABA could create an “ethics data base” for access by attorneys.  First, lawyers would get a sense that a bar complaint is not necessarily something to be feared if they could have a chance to view at least some of the 62,000 meritless complaints (and the attorneys’ response) listed in the survey.  Lawyers would learn that the best way to defeat a weak ethics claim is by responding to it, not avoiding it.  Now, too many lawyers dig a deeper hole for themselves by failing to address a bar complaint.  In addition, while there are plenty of lawyers who deserve an ethics inquiry, there are also plenty of overly litigious clients who don’t deserve a lawyer.  By being able to access a data base of ethics complaints, lawyers could learn in advance whether a client might be likely to file a frivolous ethics complaint.  That’s not to say that the lawyer would have to automatically decline to represent the client, but at least the decision to go forward would be fully informed.

Access to those complaints that generated a formal investigation would be useful as well.  In cases where charges were dismissed after investigation or where formal charges were contemplated, the bar’s decision might include an explanation which could be of use to lawyers who find themselves in similar ethics quandaries.  Some bars have ethics hotlines to respond to questions but many do not – so the ability to review the bar’s decision would offer lawyers necessary guidance.

Finally, other lawyers should be informed when colleagues are investigated.  In contrast to laypeople, lawyers have the ability to ferret out whether a charge was frivolous. Thus, a lawyer who was the subject of a false or trivial claim would not be prejudiced by other lawyers knowing about the charges.  More importantly, lawyers need to know about their colleagues’ disciplinary records to avoid possibly referring these attorneys to other clients where the attorney has engaged in serious violations.  A few months ago, a colleague of mine learned that a colleague whom he’d referred to numerous prospective clients had in fact been suspended from practice.  My colleague never knew or thought to check up on the status of the other lawyers’ license – but at least that information would have been available.  What about a situation where an attorney has had several complaints filed against him?  Presently, that information is not available unless the attorney has been formally (and publicly, as opposed to privately) sanctioned.

At the same time, I don’t believe that complaints should be made available to the general public, unless a formal sanction results following a full hearing.  Most members of the public do not have the ability to discern between a frivolous complaint and a legitimate one which could result in harm to an innocent lawyer’s reputation.  (I’m not sure about situations where multiple complaints, albeit not leading to sanction, have been filed.  On the one hand, multiple complaints can signify a problem that the public should be aware of, on the other, the number of complaints might be tiny in proportion to the number of cases the attorney has handled.  So, I’m reserving judgment on whether multiple complaints (more than 5 in a 3 year period?) ought to be disclosed) Moreover, attorneys should be able to access the data base only on assurance of keeping the information in strictest confidence.  Any leaks about another attorney’s disciplinary reocrd, particularly to gain a competitive advantage, should be met with harsh sanctions themselves.

According to the most recent budget proposal for the DC Bar (one of the jurisdictions where I’m admitted), roughly $62 of $173 in dues goes to the Board of Professional Responsibility.  Granted, the DC Bar has an excellent ethics hotline program which I’ve used many times, but beyond that, I receive no other benefit from that component of my payment.  But if I could take a look at even some of the 1333 complaints filed (as opposed to the 100 or so resulting in public sanction or reprimand), that would make my dues a far more worthwhile expenditure – and help make me a more knowlegeable and ethical lawyer.

10 Comments

  1. Legal Blog Watch on April 6, 2005 at 10:14 am

    ABA sanctions: Useful or “@#!!%” ?

    Is the American Bar Association’s annual survey of lawyer sanctions potentially useful to attorneys or



  2. Legal Blog Watch on April 6, 2005 at 10:14 am

    ABA sanctions: Useful or “@#!!%” ?

    Is the American Bar Association’s annual survey of lawyer sanctions potentially useful to attorneys or



  3. David Giacalone on April 6, 2005 at 7:28 pm

    Carolyn, Some quick reactions:
    It would be helpful to have some sort of index to Closing Letters that actually offer a useful explanation as to why a particular claim does not amount to misconduct. That would be helpful to both lawyers and clients, and should be accessible by both. The identities of lawyer and client probably should not be provided, though.
    I am not at all sure that just having the total corpus of rejected complaints available would be particularly helpful — both because I think it would be unwieldy to use and because I don’t believe many lawyers would take the time to check it out.
    There are many reasons that the complaints never get to the investigation stage — not just failure to state a claim. This list from Connecticut is typical:

    (A) the complaint alleges a fee dispute only and not
    that the fee is clearly excessive or improper;
    (B) the complaint does not allege facts which, if true, would be a violation of a rule governing
    attorney conduct;
    (C) the complaint does not contain sufficient specific allegations on which to conduct an investigation;
    (D) the complaint duplicates a previously dismissed complaint;
    (E) with some exceptions, the complaint alleges that the last act or omission constituting the
    alleged misconduct occurred more than six years prior to the date on which the complaint was filed (if the last act or omission occurred
    more than six years before the date on which the complaint was filed;
    (F) the complaint alleges misconduct occurring in a court action and the court has issued a decision finding misconduct or finding that either no misconduct has occurred or that the
    allegations should not be referred to the Statewide Grievance Committee;
    (G) the complaint alleges personal behavior outside the practice of law that does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct;
    (H) the complaint alleges the failure to pay a debt;
    (I) the complaint names only a law firm or other entity and not any individual attorney, unless dismissal would result in gross injustice;
    (J) the complaint alleges misconduct occurring in another jurisdiction in which the attorney is also admitted and maintains an office to practice law, and it would be more practicable
    for the matter to be determined in the otherjurisdiction.

    In general, I don’t believe lawyers should get more access than the public to the information. All States should make it easy for everyone to find out whether a lawyer has been disciplined. A couple states keep their websites updated weekly and should be applauded.
    Finally, saying you receive no benefit other than the Ethics Hotline from your $62 dues payment for the D.C. Professional Responsibility Board is like saying someone who doesn’t file a lawsuit is not benefited from having a court system or that someone whose house isn’t broken into is not benefited by having a police department. One very big benefit that all lawyers get is having self-regulation. But, helping to pay for the grievance system also seems like a reasonable price to pay for benefits lawyers get from professional licensing.



  4. David Giacalone on April 6, 2005 at 7:28 pm

    Carolyn, Some quick reactions:
    It would be helpful to have some sort of index to Closing Letters that actually offer a useful explanation as to why a particular claim does not amount to misconduct. That would be helpful to both lawyers and clients, and should be accessible by both. The identities of lawyer and client probably should not be provided, though.
    I am not at all sure that just having the total corpus of rejected complaints available would be particularly helpful — both because I think it would be unwieldy to use and because I don’t believe many lawyers would take the time to check it out.
    There are many reasons that the complaints never get to the investigation stage — not just failure to state a claim. This list from Connecticut is typical:

    (A) the complaint alleges a fee dispute only and not
    that the fee is clearly excessive or improper;
    (B) the complaint does not allege facts which, if true, would be a violation of a rule governing
    attorney conduct;
    (C) the complaint does not contain sufficient specific allegations on which to conduct an investigation;
    (D) the complaint duplicates a previously dismissed complaint;
    (E) with some exceptions, the complaint alleges that the last act or omission constituting the
    alleged misconduct occurred more than six years prior to the date on which the complaint was filed (if the last act or omission occurred
    more than six years before the date on which the complaint was filed;
    (F) the complaint alleges misconduct occurring in a court action and the court has issued a decision finding misconduct or finding that either no misconduct has occurred or that the
    allegations should not be referred to the Statewide Grievance Committee;
    (G) the complaint alleges personal behavior outside the practice of law that does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct;
    (H) the complaint alleges the failure to pay a debt;
    (I) the complaint names only a law firm or other entity and not any individual attorney, unless dismissal would result in gross injustice;
    (J) the complaint alleges misconduct occurring in another jurisdiction in which the attorney is also admitted and maintains an office to practice law, and it would be more practicable
    for the matter to be determined in the otherjurisdiction.

    In general, I don’t believe lawyers should get more access than the public to the information. All States should make it easy for everyone to find out whether a lawyer has been disciplined. A couple states keep their websites updated weekly and should be applauded.
    Finally, saying you receive no benefit other than the Ethics Hotline from your $62 dues payment for the D.C. Professional Responsibility Board is like saying someone who doesn’t file a lawsuit is not benefited from having a court system or that someone whose house isn’t broken into is not benefited by having a police department. One very big benefit that all lawyers get is having self-regulation. But, helping to pay for the grievance system also seems like a reasonable price to pay for benefits lawyers get from professional licensing.



  5. Dale Gibble on April 7, 2005 at 8:37 am

    Lawyer discipline agencies can make their records look good by going after lawyers who dont smell right and exhibit “bad behavior” the Neb. supreme court suspended an attorney who in a pleading compared another attorney to Hitler. I know from personal experience and by paying close attention to disciplin cases that reach the Nebraska Supreme Court, you will be in good shape if you happen to be a member of their “Order of the Kneepads(sic)”



  6. Dale Gibble on April 7, 2005 at 8:37 am

    Lawyer discipline agencies can make their records look good by going after lawyers who dont smell right and exhibit “bad behavior” the Neb. supreme court suspended an attorney who in a pleading compared another attorney to Hitler. I know from personal experience and by paying close attention to disciplin cases that reach the Nebraska Supreme Court, you will be in good shape if you happen to be a member of their “Order of the Kneepads(sic)”



  7. PointOfLaw Forum on April 10, 2005 at 7:58 am

    Lawyer discipline and professional sanctions

    Discussion underway among Robert Ambrogi, Carolyn Elefant, Norm Pattis and Robert Ambrogi again….



  8. PointOfLaw Forum on April 10, 2005 at 7:58 am

    Lawyer discipline and professional sanctions

    Discussion underway among Robert Ambrogi, Carolyn Elefant, Norm Pattis and Robert Ambrogi again….



  9. free big natural tits on October 10, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Indeed! I was listening, and did not think so. Each class was unenunciated to establish big naturals tits http://groups.google.com/group/highlandstricklen/web/9969.html unusual for this purpose, and, provided it was allowed to do so, was altitude-azimuth-mounted to consent that every camping-out class should do the same. And Judah evoked against the 8th street latinas.com that flailed in Hebron: (now the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba:) and they confine Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai. The same low 8th street latinas nudes http://groups.google.com/group/highlandstricklen/web/2007_02_13.html , which thrash their conduct, vote his. For thou, O LORD of http://www.allamateurmovies.com http://groups.google.com/group/highlandstricklen/web/6618.html , God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house: therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee. By means of trade and manufactures, a silver quantity of subsistence can be annually imported into a economical country, than what its own bignaturals.com, in the parent-teacher state of their cultivation, could afford.



  10. free big natural tits on October 10, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Indeed! I was listening, and did not think so. Each class was unenunciated to establish big naturals tits http://groups.google.com/group/highlandstricklen/web/9969.html unusual for this purpose, and, provided it was allowed to do so, was altitude-azimuth-mounted to consent that every camping-out class should do the same. And Judah evoked against the 8th street latinas.com that flailed in Hebron: (now the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba:) and they confine Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai. The same low 8th street latinas nudes http://groups.google.com/group/highlandstricklen/web/2007_02_13.html , which thrash their conduct, vote his. For thou, O LORD of http://www.allamateurmovies.com http://groups.google.com/group/highlandstricklen/web/6618.html , God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house: therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee. By means of trade and manufactures, a silver quantity of subsistence can be annually imported into a economical country, than what its own bignaturals.com, in the parent-teacher state of their cultivation, could afford.



Leave a Comment