PITTSBURGH -- Lawyers have battled to shed light on the disciplinary actions against doctors, accountants, police and, recently, Catholic priests. But in Pennsylvania, critics say, lawyers are shielded by one of the country's least open systems.

"I think it is accurate to say Pennsylvania's disciplinary system is one of the most secretive in the nation," Robert Davis, a former prosecutor for the Pennsylvania's disciplinary counsel, told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for Sunday's editions. In the state's lawyer discipline system, complaints, hearings and outcomes are not made public until the state Supreme Court issues a ruling on serious penalties such as suspension or disbarment.

"Everything is confidential unless there is a public discipline," said Elaine Bixler, executive director and secretary of the state's Disciplinary Board.

Critics contend that allows unethical or incompetent lawyers to prey on Pennsylvanians. One consumer group ranked Pennsylvania's disciplinary system the worst in the country.

Supporters, however, argue that confidentiality protects lawyers from unfounded or frivolous complaints.

"If you make the hearing public when there is no basis for a charge in the first place, it can cause irreparable harm for a lawyer," said James Schwartzman, a Philadelphia attorney who represents many lawyers accused of misconduct.

State officials receive more than 4,500 complaints a year against attorneys and only a fraction become public. Two years ago, 31 cases were referred to the Supreme Court for discipline; of those, 17 resulted in disbarments.

Complaints against lawyers are investigated by the state Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which can discipline lawyers with informal and private admonitions. The disciplinary counsel can also recommend private reprimands or prosecute a lawyer before the state Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board.

Hearings before the board, which is composed of 14 lawyers and two non-lawyers, are also confidential, as are reprimands. A disciplined lawyer's name becomes public only if the state Supreme Court issues a formal punishment ruling.

Even then, the public might not realize such a ruling exists. The court sends such rulings to the disciplinary board, which sends written notices on suspensions and disbarments to county president judges and newspapers, but the notices give only the names of attorneys without details of the transgressions.

Hearings to reinstate disbarred lawyers are also closed to the public.

Meanwhile, misconduct hearings are public in cases involving doctors, accountants and about two dozen other jobs covered under the state's Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs - including judges.

"If this were done for doctors or accountants, lawyers would scream," said Ronald Rotunda, a law professor at George Mason University in Arlington, Va. "I think we, as lawyers, ought to eat our own cooking."

In October, Washington, D.C.-based legal reform group HALT gave Pennsylvania's lawyer-discipline system an F and ranked it last in the nation. The group said Pennsylvania's system was so secretive it was unable to get information about how it works and could not determine the adequacy of discipline. Massachusetts ranked first, with an overall grade of B-minus.

"If somebody is found to have violated something, he or she deserves to be publicly condemned," University of Pennsylvania law professor Geoffrey Hazard Jr. said. "The absence of that kind of consequence is one of the contributing reasons that the (lawyers') disciplinary apparatus isn't very effective."