Don’t punish lawyers in more secrecy

The Des Moines Register

----

Iowa's process for punishing lawyers who misbehave is complicated, slow and of questionable effectiveness. It should not be made more secretive to boot.

Yet, that is what is proposed in a rule change to be considered by the Iowa Supreme Court next month. The new rule would allow a lawyer to voluntarily admit wrongdoing that could result in a temporary license suspension. In exchange for avoiding a months-long disciplinary hearing process, details of the lawyer's admitted wrongdoing would be kept confidential. In other words, the public would know when a lawyer has temporarily lost his or her license, but not why.

That may be in the offending lawyer's interest, but it is not in the interest of potential clients who might want to look for a different lawyer if they knew the facts behind the suspension.

It is important for clients to know what a lawyer has done to warrant a suspension. Was it mishandling money? Neglecting business? Sexually harassing a client? Breaking the law? Or was is something less serious, say failing to complete continuing education credits, or violating the court's rules on lawyer advertising? It is also in the lawyer's interest to disclose the nature of the violation, because clients may otherwise assume the worst.

Under current rules, a lawyer can voluntarily surrender his or her law license without the reasons becoming public. This avoids a lengthy and potentially costly fight before the Attorney Disciplinary Board or the Grievance Commission. The intent of this exception is to quickly remove a lawyer who should no longer be practicing law. There is a greater public interest in acting quickly than disclosing the reasons for disbarment.

There is no such tradeoff in the case of suspensions, where the lawyer will be allowed to return to practice.

The proposed rule change is motivated by a need to expedite the lawyer discipline process. The Iowa Supreme Court's professional regulation office processes about 500 complaints annually against Iowa lawyers, and while roughly 80 percent of those complaints are resolved relatively quickly, the other 20 percent can take far longer. The most serious allegations take an average of 37 months from complaint to resolution by the Supreme Court. Paul Wieck II, the director of professional regulation for the court, said that is at least 12 months too long.

The intent of the rule change may be a desire to expedite complaints, not to shield lawyers from scrutiny, but that will be the result.

It would move the court in the wrong direction at a time when it is working hard to be more transparent to the public. The defeat of three Supreme Court justices in last year's retention election prompted the court to take a number of steps to be more open about the judicial process, which is welcome.

Closing the curtains, even partly, on the court's lawyer-discipline process would be a step backward.

The goal should be a lawyer discipline process that is swift, sure - and transparent.

---