HALT graded lawyer discipline systems in six categories:

Adequacy of Discipline --- The most critical category produced the weakest grades. Analyzing the ABA's most recent statistics, HALT found that only six states - Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Wisconsin - review every grievance, while the average state investigates only 58 percent of the complaints it receives. And unfortunately, investigations rarely result in discipline. A whopping 24 states impose formal public sanctions - disbarments, suspensions and public reprimands - in just five percent of investigated cases. In the average jurisdiction, only 7.8 percent of investigations yield public discipline. Almost half of the sanctions take the form of private discipline, rendered behind closed doors. "A secret reprimand amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist," explained HALT Associate Counsel Suzanne Blonder. "Because it is so lenient, it fails to deter unethical conduct and because it is done in secret, it fails to warn consumers about which attorneys to avoid."

Publicity and Responsiveness --- While disciplinary bodies are not publicized in courthouses and local media as much as they were four years ago, their online resources have dramatically improved since 2002. Today, most disciplinary Web sites offer downloadable complaint forms, information about upcoming hearings and clear explanations about the disciplinary process - features that most states lacked four years ago. Unfortunately, telephone services have not seen as much progress. California is one of the nation's worst offenders, forcing consumers to wade through a complex and time-consuming automated system before they can obtain information from Bar staff.

Openness --- Attorney discipline continues to be shrouded in secrecy. Nine states - Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming - prohibit the public from attending disciplinary hearings. Hamstrung by rules that require them to keep the process secret, officials in the vast majority of states refuse to release information about attorneys' discipline histories. Oregon and Arizona have always been the exceptions to the rule, providing consumers with complete records, including whether a grievance was ever filed against a lawyer. After HALT submitted comments to New Hampshire in 2004, the state adopted new rules which now allow disciplinary officials in that state to release complete disciplinary histories.

Fairness --- Disciplinary systems still utilize biased procedures. The most egregious - Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas and Utah - prohibit consumers from disclosing information until the disciplinary body imposes public discipline in the case. New Jersey and Tennessee are the only two states that significantly improved in this area. At HALT's urging, supreme courts in both states struck down their gag rules as unconstitutional.

Public Participation --- On most hearing panels just one out of every three members is a non-lawyer. Six states - California, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee - do not allow a single layperson to hear evidence in disciplinary proceedings. Idaho is the only jurisdiction in the country where non-lawyers comprise the majority on hearing committees.

Promptness --- Shamefully, 18 states - Alaska, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin - stonewalled, refusing to release information about their timeliness to the ABA. Of the states that did report on the pace of their case processing, the average jurisdiction took nine months just to bring charges against an attorney and an additional five months to impose sanctions. Louisiana, the nation's most inefficient disciplinary body, took an astonishing 45 months - nearly four years! - to file formal charges in the average case.

"American legal consumers deserve a system that investigates promptly, deliberates openly, and weeds out unethical or incompetent attorneys," stated Turner. "Until there is meaningful reform, the legal profession has only itself to blame for the widespread public mistrust that mars every attorney's reputation."