A difference between the Original Purpose & Reality of Today? The DRPC are under constant scrutiny & revision. This constant scrutiny & revision is mainly for one purpose: the protection of the public. 604 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 2000)(ethics rules “are chiefly intended to provide protection of the public"
1
Discipliinary Rules Not Meant to be Punitive Per Se in nature
“Discipline is a remedy for professional failure, but unlike malpractice and other remedies, discipline vindicates the public’s interest in protecting the public and deterring unethical behavior. Discipline does not have the purpose, although it may have the effect, of providing a remedy to the particular individual injured by a lawyer’s improper conduct.” (Stephen Gillers, Regulation of Lawyers: Problems of Law and Ethics, 6th Ed. (2002), pg. 834)
2
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanction
The ABA explains the purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings as follows: “The purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings is to protect the public & the administration of justice from lawyers who have not discharged, will not discharge, or are unlikely properly to discharge their professional duties to clients, the public, the legal system, & the profession.” (Gillers, op. cit., pg. 834-35).
3
Positions of the Courts
“While courts express their views on the purpose of lawyer sanctions somewhat differently, an examination of reported cases reveals surprising accord as to the basic purpose of discipline. As identified by the courts, the primary purpose is to protect the public. Second, the courts cite the need to protect the integrity of the legal system, and to insure the administration of justice. Another purpose is to deter further unethical conduct and, where appropriate, to rehabilitate the lawyer. A final purpose of imposing sanctions is to educate other lawyers and the public, thereby deterring unethical behavior among all members of the profession. As the courts have noted, while sanctions imposed on a lawyer obviously have a punitive aspect, nonetheless, it is not the purpose to impose such sanctions for punishment.” (Id. emphasis added).
4
Comments to the TDRPC & Former Regional Counsel of Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Comment 7 to the TDRPC, in pertinent part states: “A lawyer who acts in good faith is not subject to discipline, under those provisions for an isolated inadvertent or unskilled act or omission, tactical error, or error of judgment.” Each of the foregoing points must be kept in mind whenever a “grievance” situation is presented for scrutiny by a disciplinary body. Brian Shaffer, former Regional Counsel for the Houston Office of the Texas State Bar’s Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (“OCDC”) publicly commented that the rights of an attorney in the grievance process should be protected. He further stated that if the case is referred to the Summary Dismissal Docket, the OCDC advocates on behalf of the accused attorney to have the case dismissed (Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Houston Regional Office Disciplinary Counsel, Brian Schaffer – HBA CLE Seminar, Houston, February 18, 2005).
5
Conclusion
While disciplined attorneys feel they are being punished, and the courts acknowledge that this is obviously a putative effect, officially sanctions are to protective and are to prevent similar misconduct, both by the grieved attorney and all other attorneys in the State of Texas in order to protect the public..
Comments - add comment