Electrical, that is. This morning I was in blawgger heaven: almost finished with a posting that offered insight, entertainment, provocation, erudition (trust me). Then, the power went out — tree trimmers cut a line, I think. Having been in the zone, I had forgotten to save my work at any point along the way. Zap! Now, Zip.
It’s only ethicalEsq?’s second Monday, so I hate having nothing new posted here. Whether this is your first visit or you’re nice enough to be coming back for more, I hope you’ll scroll on down the page and maybe do some clicking in the Navigation Menu. .
Because ethicalEsq? has still had no comments on any topic other than contingency fees, I’d like to steer you to my op/ed piece, D for Discipline in the Essays folder. Although dealing mostly with the system of lawyer discipline in New York State, the essay describes problems that can be found across the nation, and suggests solutions similar to the recommendations of the national legal reform group “HALT”. The Consumer Federation of America recently endorsed HALT’s proposals, calling for an end to secret hearings and private reprimands, a large increase in the number of nonlawyers on panels, the investigation of all complaints, and the opening up of attorney discipline records.
For a detailed look at each state’s disciplinary problems, see the Lawyer Discipline Report Cards issued in October, 2002, by HALT for all 51 jurisdictions. HALT concluded that the American system is still broken — as an ABA Commission stated in 1992, lawyer discipline is “too slow, too secret, too soft, and too self-regulated.”
Feedback is encouraged. Come back again soon.