{"id":3576,"date":"2003-09-09T20:29:18","date_gmt":"2003-09-10T00:29:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/09\/09\/theyre-indisposed-to-disclose"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:41","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:41","slug":"theyre-indisposed-to-disclose-lawyer-discipline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/09\/09\/theyre-indisposed-to-disclose-lawyer-discipline\/","title":{"rendered":"They’re Indisposed to Disclose Lawyer Discipline"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

I<\/strong><\/em>n many states, the bar is still quaintly bashful about letting the public know which lawyers have been\u00a0disciplined for violating ethics rules.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The (laughable) fear of hurting the profession’s image and the (self-serving) desire to spare themselves and their colleagues embarrassment do not justify denying consumers information they need to make\u00a0better choices among lawyers.<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n
Several states have already proven that full disclosure can work well, especially using cyber technology.\u00a0\u00a0 Therefore, despite disagreeing<\/a> two days ago with RealityChecker<\/a>‘s proposal to use the internet to shame particular lawyers, I strongly endorse the principle of full openness\u00a0in the disciplinary process. <\/span>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Here’s what the legal reform group HALT said<\/a> <\/span>when issuing its Lawyer Discipline Report Card last autumn:<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
Openness of the Process<\/span><\/strong>
\nAlthough most lawyer discipline agencies are starting to make their services better known to the public, the vast majority of states do not allow much of the information that comes out of their disciplinary agencies [to become] known to the public. If consumers call their state agency and ask whether a grievance has ever been filed against a particular attorney, all but two states – Oregon and Arizona – refuse to respond. Few disciplinary agencies will even inform an inquiring consumer of whether the agency has ever admonished or reprimanded a particular lawyer. <\/span><\/div>\n
Lawyer discipline agencies also make it difficult for the public to find out which attorneys have been disbarred, suspended and publicly censured. Most states bury these lists in bar journals and legal newspapers – publications that do not reach the general public. It seems that little has changed since 1970, when the Clark Commission reported that “[m]ost disciplinary agencies deliberately discourage any publication of their activities, believing that the public image of the profession is damaged by a disclosure that attorney misconduct exists.” <\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The HALT report also noted that a number of jurisdictions continue to keep hearings closed to the general public. “Florida, for example, allows only the grievant and the defendant lawyer into the hearing room. New York, Missouri and Nevada hold secret hearings – prohibiting even the person who filed the complaint from observing the proceedings.”\u00a0\u00a0 Furthermore, “gag rules<\/span>”\u00a0 still exist in nine<\/em> states — Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota, and\u00a0Washington.\u00a0\u00a0 Those rules prohibit a consumer who files a grievance from speaking about it to anyone,\u00a0threatening\u00a0fines and imprisonment for contempt of court.\u00a0 HALT’s Suzanne Mishkin<\/a> correctly calls<\/span> this “a clear violation of the First Amendment right of free speech.”<\/span><\/div>\n