Profession and Public Win with Discipline on Web
Opinion Article by Helen Perry Grimwood
State Bar of Arizona President

Soon, when you or a member of the public searches for an Arizona lawyer on the State Bar Web sites, it will be easier to discover whether final orders of discipline have been issued against that lawyer. After more than two years of research, debate and a thorough vetting process, I am proud to say the State Bar has developed a solution that balances our charges from the Arizona Supreme Court to enhance the profession and to protect the public.

It’s important to note that all of the orders to be posted on the Web sites are final orders, that were preceded by due process rights and an opportunity to a full adversarial hearing before impartial hearing officers, in a system that includes appeal rights to the Supreme Court’s disciplinary commission, and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court. The standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence.

These orders have long been public information, under Arizona Supreme Court Rules. Anyone can access them by calling the State Bar, visiting the Bar’s office, or by reading a page deep on our Web site. In fact, most of these orders are already on the Supreme Court’s web site; they just haven’t been linked to the place on our web site where we all look for one another and where the public looks for us. What seems to make some people uncomfortable is that it will now be easier for the public and referring attorneys to discover this information because it will be easily viewed via “find a lawyer” or “member finder” on the Web any time, any day.

Before finally adopting the current policy, your Board of Governors, which includes 19 lawyers you elected, four appointed public members, and three Supreme Court appointees, examined the issues and process closely. The Board sought input and listened to many ideas and concerns from attorneys. We talked to lawyers in person, held online chats, listened to lawyers who represent attorneys being investigated by the Lawyer Regulation Department, and even slowed down our process when some lawyers said we were moving too fast.

Some wanted more information to be published on Lawyer Finder and Member Finder. Others wanted less. In the end, the Board decided to post only final orders in which discipline is actually imposed, after full due process. The Board approved plan (see box below) allows consumers and attorneys to make informed decisions about the lawyers they choose to consult. Note, however, that diversion orders are not considered discipline and will not be posted. Dismissals will not be posted. Mere charges will not be posted. At this point, probable cause orders will not be posted.

In making this decision, the Board was fair to the lawyers and the public we all serve. It decided against posting diversion orders because those are largely voluntary and are reserved for minor, unintentional “technical violations” that don’t hurt people and can be handled best with education and training. Likewise, most minor complaints are satisfactorily handled through our ACAP program, rather than through the full-blown formal discipline process, and do not result in final orders of discipline. The Board even decided against posting final orders of informal reprimand, in part because these are reserved for less serious misconduct and historically have not been required to be published in Arizona Attorney magazine.

The final orders of discipline that will be posted, however, fall into a different category. Referring lawyers and potential clients plainly need to know about them so that they can judge the significance of this type of discipline history.

The Board’s decision to post this type of discipline history is not groundbreaking. At least 15 other State Bars are already reporting similar information online. And other professions are ahead of us, as well. I’m sure many of you have used the Web to look up a doctor with the Arizona Medical Board or check out a contractor with the Arizona Register of Contractors. Both offer varying degrees of helpful public information, including investigations and actions taken against their members.

The State Bar believes in the accountability of the legal profession and the transparency of our lawyer regulation process. It’s the right thing to do, and ultimately it will help us improve the reputation of the profession.

We also believe in the fairness of our lawyer regulation system, whose hallmark is rigorous due process. It can be difficult to self-regulate, but with the hard work of an excellent staff and a Board oversight committee, we’re confident that our lawyer regulation system deals fairly with attorneys and protects the public.

I believe we as a profession are measured by how we deal with our colleagues who violate the rules of professional conduct.. It’s natural to want to hide one’s blemishes, but I know that the Board acted with integrity, after full consideration of all interests, and based on a thorough understanding of our discipline system, in making a decision that will serve the profession and the public well.