New York Law Journal - November 12, 2004
As the Law Journal recently reported ["Report Recommends Changes in Attorney Discipline Process," Oct. 12, 2004, page 1], clients in downstate New York may have something to cheer about. A committee chaired by Appellate Division Justice Gabriel Krausman is in the midst of overhauling the Second Department's attorney discipline body -- a system previously marked by a bewilderingly complicated structure and endless delay.
The 2002 Lawyer Discipline Report Card from HALT, an organization of Americans for legal reform, gave New York's disciplinary body, as a whole, a disgraceful 'D' and named it one of the 10 worst systems in the nation. Thankfully, the Krausman Report's recommendations address some of our concerns. Proposals include expediting the disciplinary process, consolidating the three districts' informational brochures and improving the caliber of disciplinary decision-makers.
Unfortunately, the report fails to address two of the Second Department's most critical deficiencies: an unusually low number of nonlawyers on hearing committees and its rule prohibiting the public, including complainants, from attending disciplinary hearings. In comments recently filed with the Department, HALT urged these important improvements.
In addition to errors of omission, two proposals in the Krausman Report stand to undermine the committee's efforts to restore the public's trust and confidence in the legal system. The committee opposes the imposition of disciplinary costs on culpable attorneys. HALT strongly disagrees with the committee's position because we believe that the additional funds would bring urgently needed capital to the Second Department. HALT also urges the Department to take a closer look at a recommendation to reduce the length of minimum suspensions from one year to six months. While we agree that some instances of misconduct only merit a six-month suspension, we urge the Department to clarify that the six-month suspension should be used sparingly and only under circumstances in which a public censure would have been applied under the previous rules.
All who practice law have a shared interest in creating a discipline system that is worthy of the public's trust and confidence. Do New York consumers deserve any less?
Suzanne Mishkin
Amy Dietrich
Washington, D.C.
|
