Virginian-Pilot editorial: Judge's initiative invites mistrust
Judge's initiative invites mistrust
Posted to: Editorials Opinion
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/04/judges-initiative-invites-mistrust
Read Articles
The Virginian-Pilot
© April 23, 2008
IMAGINE ENROLLING your child at a day care center after finding no evidence that the owner had been anything but a responsible, watchful caretaker.
Imagine learning, after your child wandered off the playground, that two years earlier a jury had found the owner negligent in supervising kids, but because the case was on appeal, that record wasn't public.
Most people would be incensed at such secrecy, and rightly so. But that's essentially the process the chief justice of Virginia's Supreme Court wants for lawyers being disciplined for breaking the rules.
If the State Bar admonishes or reprimands a lawyer, or suspends or revokes his license, Chief Justice Leroy Hassell doesn't want it publicized until the Supreme Court has upheld the finding or the appeals period has expired. This is an odd retreat after years of incremental, but steady, progress making our legal process more open to scrutiny.
Under Hassell's recommendation, if you wanted to find out, for example, whether the court had disciplined a lawyer you were considering hiring to handle a parent's estate, you might be out of luck. If the lawyer had just been reprimanded for misconduct, Hassell wants him to be able to go through the appeals process before the disciplinary action hurts his reputation.
Howard Martin, a Norfolk lawyer and president of the Virginia State Bar, wrote Hassell this month, politely but firmly objecting to closing out the public. "The extent of openness in the current disciplinary system is consistent with that which is characteristic of the court system generally," he said. "It is also consistent with the idea of increased transparency in government and in the disciplinary process."
Virginians' inability to find out from the Web site discipline information during the appeal process "significantly impairs the bar's important efforts to protect the public," Martin wrote, adding that it is "in stark contrast to the court system's treatment of the ordinary litigant or defendant."
Out of respect for the chief justice, the bar has disabled its lawyer discipline search function on the Web site and discontinued posting disciplinary cases on its hearing docket. Fortunately, if someone calls the bar to ask about the disciplinary record of a particular lawyer, the bar still will say what actions, if any, have been leveled against the lawyer.
The bar's standing committee on lawyer discipline has urged the Supreme Court to allow public access to continue. The Internet is "an essential tool of public protection, and that information should be available" as soon as a lawyer is found to have violated disciplinary rules, the committee wrote in a resolution.
The bar is right to defend the importance of transparency, even though it may bring disrepute on some of its members.
It's hard to trust the justice system if the officers of the court are held to a different standard from the one used for the people they were hired to represent.
Posted to: Editorials Opinion
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/04/judges-initiative-invites-mistrust
Read Articles
The Virginian-Pilot
© April 23, 2008
IMAGINE ENROLLING your child at a day care center after finding no evidence that the owner had been anything but a responsible, watchful caretaker.
Imagine learning, after your child wandered off the playground, that two years earlier a jury had found the owner negligent in supervising kids, but because the case was on appeal, that record wasn't public.
Most people would be incensed at such secrecy, and rightly so. But that's essentially the process the chief justice of Virginia's Supreme Court wants for lawyers being disciplined for breaking the rules.
If the State Bar admonishes or reprimands a lawyer, or suspends or revokes his license, Chief Justice Leroy Hassell doesn't want it publicized until the Supreme Court has upheld the finding or the appeals period has expired. This is an odd retreat after years of incremental, but steady, progress making our legal process more open to scrutiny.
Under Hassell's recommendation, if you wanted to find out, for example, whether the court had disciplined a lawyer you were considering hiring to handle a parent's estate, you might be out of luck. If the lawyer had just been reprimanded for misconduct, Hassell wants him to be able to go through the appeals process before the disciplinary action hurts his reputation.
Howard Martin, a Norfolk lawyer and president of the Virginia State Bar, wrote Hassell this month, politely but firmly objecting to closing out the public. "The extent of openness in the current disciplinary system is consistent with that which is characteristic of the court system generally," he said. "It is also consistent with the idea of increased transparency in government and in the disciplinary process."
Virginians' inability to find out from the Web site discipline information during the appeal process "significantly impairs the bar's important efforts to protect the public," Martin wrote, adding that it is "in stark contrast to the court system's treatment of the ordinary litigant or defendant."
Out of respect for the chief justice, the bar has disabled its lawyer discipline search function on the Web site and discontinued posting disciplinary cases on its hearing docket. Fortunately, if someone calls the bar to ask about the disciplinary record of a particular lawyer, the bar still will say what actions, if any, have been leveled against the lawyer.
The bar's standing committee on lawyer discipline has urged the Supreme Court to allow public access to continue. The Internet is "an essential tool of public protection, and that information should be available" as soon as a lawyer is found to have violated disciplinary rules, the committee wrote in a resolution.
The bar is right to defend the importance of transparency, even though it may bring disrepute on some of its members.
It's hard to trust the justice system if the officers of the court are held to a different standard from the one used for the people they were hired to represent.
