A commission appointed by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman recommended
Friday that uniform standards for attorney discipline be adopted
throughout New York state and follow guidelines developed by the
American Bar Association.
While the existing machinery of
disciplining attorneys should remain in place in each of the four
Appellate Division departments, adopting uniform rules would ensure that
lawyers from Long Island to Buffalo would be subject to the same
punishments for the same misconduct, according to
the recommendations of the Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline.
The
committee said the ABA's standards for imposing lawyer sanctions should
serve as the template for disciplinary standards throughout the state.
That single set of standards should be adopted by the administrative
board of the courts and by each appellate division, the commission
recommended.
Overall, the commission said the current attorney
discipline system was not broken. "In many ways, it works quite well,"
the report said.
However, it found that the system is "antiquated, inefficient and far too opaque—a flaw which undermines public confidence."
The
group proposed creating a new position of statewide coordinator of
attorney discipline, who would be a liaison among the disciplinary
committees in each of the four appellate divisions to ensure that
disciplinary rules are being enforced uniformly, to "encourage"
communication between four disciplinary panels and to recommend
improvements as a more uniform statewide discipline system is adopted.
The
overarching theme of the commission's report—to reduce inconsistencies
on how the four departmental committees discipline lawyers—was expected
when Lippman appointed the statewide panel in March. When announcing its
formation, Lippman said, "if this commission were starting from scratch
and creating an attorney disciplinary system in the first instance,
there is no question it would establish a single, statewide structure."
Lippman
noted that the appellate division-based disciplinary system has been
criticized for the inconsistent application of standards and for
inconsistent punishments for the same misconduct, depending on where in
New York the offending attorney is practicing.
A subcommittee of
the commission found a "pressing" need for "rejuvenation, coordination
and uniformity in both procedure and sanction" regardless of which
appellate department the attorney is registered in.
The commission
said most of its recommendations could be approved by the courts
administratively and "expeditiously," without the need for legislation
or amendments to the state Constitution.
Other recommendations included:
•
Allowing each of the four disciplinary committees to seek a court order
for the interim suspension of attorneys and the publication of charges
in cases where lawyers' conduct places clients at "significant risk or
presents an immediate threat to the public interest."
•
Establishing a diversion or alternative-to-discipline program for
misconduct attributable to alcohol abuse, substance abuse or mental
illness.
• Creating an "administrative" suspension and
reinstatement process for attorneys who are delinquent in timely payment
of their registration fees.
• Devising a better system of informing the "legal consumer" how to bring accusations against lawyers.
•
Improving tracking of disciplinary matters involving alleged misconduct
by prosecutors, and making the administrative board of the courts adopt
rules ensuring that judge's determinations of prosecutorial misconduct
are promptly referred to departmental discipline panels.
The
commission was chaired by Barry Cozier, senior counsel at LeClair Ryan
and a former Second Department justice. Its members included current and
former judges, attorney disciplinary officials, litigators and
academicians (
NYLJ, March 31).
Nicholas
Gravante, a member of the commission and an administrative partner and
general counsel at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, said that, for him,
finding a uniform system between the four judicial department was "key."
"Where
things ended up was never the issue as each of the four state judicial
departments have reasonable policies and procedures, and which of those
policies and procedures are best could be debated endlessly," Gravante
said. "Adopting one set and striving for statewide uniformity in their
application was the critical objective."
Commission member Hal
Lieberman, a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady and author
of "New York Attorney Discipline," said that he was generally pleased
with the commission's final product, particularly with the
recommendations to establish a statewide attorney discipline "czar" and
use of ABA's rules as a guide for the statewide sanction system.
But
Lieberman, a Law Journal columnist, said the commission should have
done more to address the delays between the time an alleged misconduct
takes place and when the matter is brought to the attention of grievance
committees and resolved.
A non-member of the commission, Timothy
O'Sullivan, is executive director of the Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection, the state entity that compensates clients for losses caused
by crooked lawyers. He said in an interview Friday that the panel's
report at initial review appears to satisfy his trustees' concerns about
the unequal application of sanctions against lawyers.
"My initial
impression is that the commission made some excellent recommendation
about concerns that the Lawyers' Fund and my trustees had, which is that
there be more consistency with the imposition of lawyer sanctions and
that there be a statewide coordinator for attorney discipline,"
O'Sullivan said.
Robert Giuffra, a partner at Sullivan &
Cromwell and a commission member, said recommendations in the report
will likely bring about "real-life consequences." He noted that past
committees formed by Lippman to study specific elements of New York's
judicial system—such as an advisory council established in 2013 for the
state's Commercial Division courts—tend to result in policy changes.
Giuffra
said the commission's recommendation to keep the four judicial
departments intact while working to achieve uniformity allow for both
the benefits of some centralization while maintaining the benefits of
keeping grievance committees local. The nature and speed of practicing
law differs in each judicial department, he said, as do the clients.
"This
is a very diverse legal market in a very diverse state, so there's a
benefit in avoiding absolute uniformity," Giuffra said.
Stephen
Gillers, a member of the commission and a New York University School of
Law professor who has been critical of the disciplinary regime, said the
recommendations do not adequately address the issue of bringing more
transparency earlier to the disciplinary process.
In 40 states,
the disciplinary process becomes open once there is probable cause to
hold a hearing, Gillers said in an email, but not New York.
"So
imagine a lawyer charged with serious misconduct that will almost surely
lead to suspension or disbarment," Gillers said. "But it may not happen
for a year or two. In the interval, a conscientious client thinking of
hiring that lawyer cannot discover this fact."
The New York State
Bar Association, which represents some 74,000 attorneys, said it would
give its opinions about the recommendations after studying the report.
"The
commission's report is very important to our association and the
profession," state bar President David Miranda, partner in Heslin
Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti of Albany, said. "Our Committee on
Professional Discipline is studying the report."
The commission developed its recommendations after conducting public hearings in Albany, Buffalo and Manhattan (NYLJ,
July 29,
Aug. 12).
Lippman proposed the review of the disciplinary system in his 2015 State of the Judiciary address (
NYLJ, Feb. 18).
Its relatively short turnaround for producing recommendations was seen
by many as a reflection of Lippman's desire to revamp attorney
discipline procedures as one of his final major administrative
initiatives while head of the state courts.
Lippman must step down as chief judge at the end of 2015 under the Court of Appeals' mandatory retirement rules.
Lippman
initially put Chief Administrative Judge A. Gail Prudenti in charge of
the review commission. When she resigned from the judiciary this summer
to take a job at Hofstra University School of Law (
NYLJ, July 27),
Lippman elevated Cozier from vice-chair to chair of the panel and
appointed Cornell University School of Law Professor W. Bradley Wendel
new vice chair.
The Administrative Board of the Courts, comprised
of Lippman and the presiding justices of the four appellate division
departments on Thursday approved
circulating the commission's report for public comment.
The Office of Court Administration said persons wishing to comment on the proposals should e-mail their submissions to
rulecomments@nycourts.gov or write to: John McConnell, Counsel, Office of Court Administration, 25 Beaver St., 11th Floor, New York, New York 10004.
Comments must be received no later than Nov. 9, 2015, the OCA said Friday.
Full Article & Source:
Lippman Commission Calls for Uniform Discipline Standards