Courtny John Osterling

Public Review: Courtny Osterling and the Ninth District Grievance Process I am writing this review to share my experience involving Courtny Osterling, Chief Counsel to the Ninth Judicial District Grievance Committee, and to raise a question I believe the public deserves to consider. I filed a g...rievance against my former attorney alleging serious violations of my rights as a client. One of the central allegations was that my attorney disclosed information concerning my medical condition to a third party without my authorization. My question is simple: How can an alleged breach of attorney-client confidentiality involving the disclosure of a client's medical information be classified as merely a "billing issue"? I did not file my grievance simply because I disagreed with a bill. I raised allegations concerning confidentiality, my attorney's obligations under our retainer agreement, the failure to return my files, and other conduct that I believed warranted review under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Yet my complaint was characterized as a billing matter and was not pursued. I then submitted a second complaint specifically removing matters that could be considered billing-related. I wanted the committee to focus on the alleged professional misconduct, particularly the disclosure of my confidential medical information. The matter was still closed. That is the basis of my criticism. As Chief Counsel, Ms. Osterling has an important role in the grievance process. I believe a grievance committee has a responsibility to determine whether an attorney's conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. If an allegation concerns the unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical information, I believe it should be evaluated as a potential confidentiality and professional-conduct issue—not simply labeled a billing dispute without addressing the underlying allegation. I am not asking anyone to accept my allegations merely because I made them. I have documentation supporting my complaint, including correspondence, and I believe those records should be independently reviewed. I also requested that my matter be transferred to another grievance committee because I was raising concerns about the Ninth District Committee itself and was providing information to individuals examining those concerns. I believed an independent review was necessary to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. That request was not granted, and I was subsequently informed that my matter was closed and that I should not continue contacting the committee about it. My concern is therefore larger than my individual case. If a lawyer allegedly discloses a client's confidential medical information to a third party, how is that a "billing issue"? That is the question I believe deserves an answer. A grievance committee should exist to protect the public and enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct. The public should be able to trust that serious allegations of attorney misconduct will be evaluated on their merits, regardless of the attorney's professional reputation or relationships. I am not declaring that anyone is guilty of corruption. I am reporting what happened to me, identifying the allegations I made, and asking for independent scrutiny of how those allegations were handled. My position is straightforward: If the evidence shows that an attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, that conduct should be addressed under those rules. It should not be transformed into a "billing issue" simply because the allegations are inconvenient or involve someone within the legal profession. I believe the public deserves transparency, accountability, and an independent review of this matter. The evidence should speak for itself.