Shed Light On Legal Discipline
By Louis N. Teti
 |
| Louis N. Teti Chair Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court |
Pennsylvania's system of lawyer discipline compares very favorably with those of other professions in the way it polices its ranks and guards against the unethical acts of relatively few members. Still, it is wise to periodically examine the system to ensure that it is meeting its goals. These are to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and safeguard the reputation of the courts.
This is being done now by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which consists of 14 lawyers and two laypersons and is appointed by the court. The legal profession is one of the few professions in this state that invites laypersons to participate actively in the disciplinary process.
The Disciplinary Board has concluded that the disciplinary process would better serve its purpose if it were opened up to the public earlier in the proceedings. That proposal is pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which regulates the practice of law in the state.
The 1992 report of the American Bar Association Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement, known as the McKay Commission, found that "secrecy in disciplinary proceedings continues to be the greatest single source of public distrust of lawyer disciplinary systems." If this secrecy harms the reputation of the profession, then lawyers need to examine and respect the public's expectation that judicial proceedings, even disciplinary proceedings, will be open to the public. Although lawyers' reputations are in the balance in cases of unfounded complaints, the commission found that the public does not accept the claim that those reputations must be shielded from false complaints by special "secret" proceedings. This is especially true, the commission noted, in a system in which lawyers earn their livelihoods in an open system of justice. Unfounded complaints against lawyers are screened during a thorough investigative process and are, in most cases, dismissed before the Office of Disciplinary Counsel files formal charges. However, we cannot lose sight of the importance of protecting innocent lawyers from the unfounded complaints of disgruntled clients.
Once formal charges are filed against a lawyer, a hearing is held before a three-lawyer panel, known as a hearing committee. This panel serves as the trial court. It hears testimony from the accused lawyer and from the complaining party, through the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which is the prosecutorial arm of the disciplinary process. The hearing committee makes a recommendation to the Disciplinary Board, which reviews the report and makes its own recommendation to the state Supreme Court on whether public or private discipline should be imposed. The Supreme Court then makes a final determination of discipline.
Under the current system, the hearing committee proceedings and all documents filed in the matter remain confidential throughout the process. If the Supreme Court determines that public discipline (i.e., disbarment, suspension or public censure) will be imposed, the punishment is then made public. Under our board's proposal now before the Supreme Court, the system would become open earlier in the process - at the time the formal charges are filed.
If the change is adopted by the court, Pennsylvania will join 40 states that open their lawyer disciplinary process at a point no later than the filing of formal charges.
Less than 4 percent of the complaints filed against lawyers result in the filing of formal charges. The vast majority of lawyers in this state are good and honest people who have never had, nor will ever have, any contact with the disciplinary system. In those cases in which a lawyer violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, the matter is handled fairly and expeditiously. Often, the violation does not harm the client, and private discipline is imposed without unnecessarily damaging the person's reputation. However, in those cases where discipline in the form of public censure, suspension or disbarment is sought, the Disciplinary Board has proposed opening the system when formal charges are filed.
We are proud of our system of discipline. There is nothing to hide. Lawyers are civic and charitable leaders and volunteers. They are dedicated to helping each of their clients, as well as the communities in which they live and work. If opening up the process will assist the profession in breaking down walls that may have been created by the current closed disciplinary system, then it's time to open it up. The public must be able to understand and respect the system, and recognize that it works very well in maintaining the integrity of the profession and of our legal system.
Opening the process earlier, in cases where there is a strong likelihood of public discipline, will assist in strengthening the public's trust and confidence in the system.
Louis N. Teti is chairman of the Disciplinary Board and a lawyer in West Chester and Exton.