Opinion ID: 1609069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Strict Scrutiny Analysis

Text: Having explained the pertinent standards, we will now subject the confidentiality rule to strict scrutiny. In the ODC's supplemental brief, the agency argues that the testimony offered by its four witnesses at the hearing before the commissioner illustrated at least four interests served by La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A) and (I):(1) protecting the reputations of lawyers who have not committed an ethical violation; (2) encouraging reporting and cooperation with disciplinary investigations; (3) protecting client confidences from unnecessary public disclosure; and (4) helping to prevent abuses of the disciplinary process. We will review each of these asserted interests in turn. As to each of the interests described above, we will first summarize the concerns the ODC has raised under each phrase, and then we will proceed to determine whether the interest qualifies as a compelling interest under strict scrutiny. Assuming the interest is properly classified as compelling, we will then proceed to determine whether the rule is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest.
We first review the state's asserted interest in protecting the reputations of lawyers who have not committed an ethical violation. Much of the testimony presented at the hearing regarding this interest tended to support the general proposition that an attorney's reputation is valuable and merits special protection. For instance, Mr. Stanley testified that a lawyer's reputation is their stock and trade. And when once lost, it's almost impossible to regain. While we agree that an attorney's reputation is valuable, we must reiterate that the confidentiality rule leaves an attorney's reputation open to a substantial amount of injury. The confidentiality mandated by La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A) and (I) prohibits participants from speaking only about the disciplinary proceedings. The confidentiality rule does not prohibit, for instance, complainants from describing in detail the events inspiring their request for disciplinary action to anyone they wish. Likewise, other participants can share information they have obtained independent of the proceedings with the general public. Furthermore, the record shows that disciplinary complaints are sometimes accompanied by civil or criminal suits which are rooted in the same underlying fact pattern. Participants may speak freely about these related suits. Thus, the interest at issue is not the protection of an attorney's reputation generally; rather, the interest is in protecting a lawyer's reputation from the injury which might arise from the release of information specifically relating to the attorney disciplinary process. In regard to this narrower interest, Mr. Shea testified that while information regarding the substance of the complaint may already be publicly known, the filing of a complaint means something different to the general public. According to Mr. Shea, the filing of the complaint insinuates there is some basis to the complaint. He stated, You have good lawyers who get these complaints against them, and if every one of these things got out and became public, that would affect their standing. Chief Disciplinary Counsel Plattsmier testified that, especially in small towns, publication of complaints against attorneys would have had a substantial detrimental affect upon not only their practice, whether guilty or innocent, but it would have ruined their reputation for them. As we previously noted, in making the legal determination as to whether a particular interest qualifies as compelling under strict scrutiny, a court has little guidance unless the Supreme Court has provided some direction regarding the state interest at issue. We find that the Supreme Court has provided guidance as to reputational interests in the context of government investigations in two cases, Landmark, 435 U.S. 829, 98 S.Ct. 1535, and Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 110 S.Ct. 1376, 108 L.Ed.2d 572 (1990). In Landmark, the Court reviewed a Virginia statute which made it a crime to divulge information regarding proceedings before the state commission authorized to hear complaints related to judicial disability or misconduct. 435 U.S. at 830-831, 98 S.Ct. 1535. The statute required that the commission's proceedings remain confidential unless or until charges were filed with the state supreme court. Id., 435 U.S. at 830 n. 1, 98 S.Ct. 1535. Virginia, like the ODC in the present case, attempted to justify this suppression of speech on the basis of reputational interests. The state asserted the confidentiality rule protected judges from the reputational injury that would result from the publication of unfounded allegations of misconduct. Id., 435 U.S. at 840, 98 S.Ct. 1535. Considering this interest, the Supreme Court held: Admittedly, the Commonwealth has an interest in protecting the good repute of its judges, like that of all other public officials. Our prior cases have firmly established, however, that injury to official reputation is an insufficient reason for repressing speech that would otherwise be free. Id., 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. at 1543 (internal quotations omitted and citations omitted). While attorneys are not recognized as public officials in the same sense as judges are, we have long held that attorneys are officers of the courts. Chittenden v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 00-0414 (La.5/15/01), 788 So.2d 1140, 1148; State v. Woodville, 161 La. 125, 108 So. 309, 311 (1926); Accord Petition of Brooks, 678 A.2d at 144. Accordingly, we agree with the New Hampshire Supreme Court that, the fundamental importance of the first amendment, combined with the role of attorneys as officers of the court, compels the application of similar principles of free expression to the reputational interests of attorneys . . . Petition of Brooks, 678 A.2d at 144-145; See also Doe v. Sup.Ct., 734 F.Supp. at 986 (reasoning that if the interest in maintaining the reputation of the judiciary is insufficient to justify the suppression of speech, then the interest in maintaining the reputation of lawyers or the bar is equally insufficient). In Butterworth, the Court reiterated that reputational interests are insufficient to justify the suppression of speech. 494 U.S. 624, 110 S.Ct. 1376. In that case, the Court considered the constitutionality of a Florida statute which generally prohibited grand jury witnesses from ever divulging the substance of their testimony. Id., 494 U.S. at 626-627, 110 S.Ct. 1376. In their analysis, the Court reviewed Florida's interest in ensuring that persons that were accused but exonerated by the grand jury will not be held up to public ridicule. Id., 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. 1376 (quotations and citation omitted). We note that, unlike the interest in Landmark, 435 U.S. at 840-842, 98 S.Ct. 1535, this reputational interest was not limited to that of public officials; it included the reputational interest of private citizens as well. Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. 1376; See also Doe v. Doe, 127 S.W.3d at 734 (making the same observation). The Court recognized that this interest was a substantial state interest. Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. 1376. Yet, despite the broader scope of the reputational interest at issue in Butterworth, the Supreme Court held that the principle established in Landmark, 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. 1535, applied with equal force, stating our decisions establish that absent exceptional circumstances, reputational interests alone cannot justify the proscription of truthful speech. Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. at 1382 (citing several cases including Landmark, 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. at 1542-1543). We note that all four courts that have completed an in-depth First Amendment analysis of confidentiality rules in the context of an attorney discipline system have found that the state's interest in protecting the reputation of attorneys did not qualify as a compelling interest sufficient to justify the suppression of speech. Three of the four courts based their decision on Landmark, 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. 1535. Petition of Brooks, 678 A.2d at 144-145; R.M. v. Sup.Ct., 883 A.2d at 377-378; Doe v. Sup.Ct., 734 F.Supp. at 986. The Tennessee Supreme Court based its decision on Landmark, 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. 1535, and Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. 1376. Doe v. Doe, 127 S.W.3d at 734 (Applying the principles of these cases, we conclude that to the extent a legitimate interest in reputation is at stake in requiring confidentiality . . . such interest should not be recognized as compelling.). We agree with the conclusions of our fellow courts. While protecting the reputations of ethical attorneys is clearly an important interest, as we interpret the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, this interest does not qualify as compelling. Thus, this state interest fails to satisfy the requirements of the strict scrutiny analysis.
The second potential compelling interest asserted by the ODC is the state's interest in encouraging reporting and cooperation with disciplinary investigations. This single phrase obviously addresses two separate interests: (1) encouraging participants to cooperate with disciplinary investigations, and (2) encouraging the filing of complaints. Regarding the interest in encouraging cooperation with investigations, the testimony offered at the hearing before the commissioner focused on the effect the confidentiality rule has on witness cooperation. The testimony suggested that while some witnesses are anxious to disclose information regarding complaints, the confidentiality rule creates an environment where more hesitant witnesses are comfortable cooperating with the ODC staff. Regarding the state's interest in encouraging the filing of complaints, Mr. Plattsmier testified that there are a number of folks who bring matters to our attention who would not be inclined to do so if confidentiality were not going to be enforced. They would just [as soon] not participate . . . He then offered, [i]t may be very unpopular to bring up a concern against a powerful lawyer, or someone who's perceived to be a powerful lawyer, and [grievants are] reluctant to do that. In essence, the ODC claims that some witnesses are hesitant to testify and some grievants are hesitant to file a complaint for fear of either acts of reprisal from the respondent attorney or unwanted public attention. Thus, the only way to ensure the participation of these witnesses and grievants is to assure them that they can participate anonymously. The ODC asserts the confidentiality rule provides hesitant witnesses and grievants with the anonymity required to assuage their fears and ensure their participation. We note that each of the four courts that have completed an in-depth First Amendment analysis of confidentiality rules in the context of an attorney discipline system have considered interests equivalent to those represented above. Two of the four courts explicitly held these interests did not qualify as compelling under strict scrutiny. R.M. v. Sup.Ct., 883 A.2d at 378-379 (finding the state's interests in encouraging the cooperation of witnesses and promoting the filing of grievances were not sufficiently compelling to justify the suppression of a participant's speech); Doe v. Doe, 127 S.W.3d at 735 (same). The other two courts also held that the confidentiality rules in question could not survive strict scrutiny on the basis of these interests but on different grounds. Petition of Brooks, 678 A.2d at 145 (assumed arguendo that these interests were compelling but found the rule was not narrowly tailored); Doe v. Sup.Ct., 734 F.Supp. at 985 (found the state had failed to present any evidence to substantiate these interests and, regardless, found the rule was not narrowly tailored). Assuming arguendo that the interests here asserted are sufficiently compelling to suppress speech, we find that the confidentiality rule created by La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A) and (I) still fails to survive strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to promote these interests.
The confidentiality rule is not narrowly tailored to secure the cooperation of witnesses in a disciplinary investigation. The rule simply suppresses more speech than is necessary to accomplish this goal. In particular, we fail to see how imposing mandatory confidentiality on the witnesses themselves will encourage the witnesses to cooperate. Indeed some witnesses might be deterred from cooperating with the ODC when confronted with a binding obligation to maintain confidentiality. If a witness desires anonymity, they may choose to remain silent on their own accord. Cf. Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 633, 110 S.Ct. at 1382 (finding the concern that some witnesses will be deterred from cooperating with a grand jury investigation due to fears of retribution is not addressed by prohibiting the witnesses from discussing their own testimony since any witness is free not to divulge his [or her] own testimony)(emphasis added). Furthermore, although we recognize that voluntary cooperation by witnesses is desirable, there are less speech-restrictive means to obtain the cooperation of witnesses. Accord R.M. v. Sup.Ct., 883 A.2d at 380. Our rules authorize the ODC to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of a reluctant witness. La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 14; Cf. Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. at 1382 ([S]ubpoena and contempt powers [are] available to bring recalcitrant witnesses to the stand.). Moreover, under Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyer participants, in whatever role, ranging from respondents to witnesses, are obligated to fully cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of any matter under threat of discipline. Thus, there are tools that are currently available to the ODC which allow the disciplinary agency to obtain the cooperation of witnesses in a manner that is less restrictive of speech.
Having addressed the cooperation of participants, we now turn to the other interest asserted in this section, the interest in encouraging the filing of complaints. As with the prior interest, the confidentiality rule suppresses more speech than is necessary to achieve this end. Specifically, we note that the imposition of mandatory confidentiality upon the complainant is not necessary to serve this interest. As we explained above in regards to witnesses, if a grievant desires anonymity, they are free not to disclose the fact that they have filed a complaint. As with witnesses, the imposition of mandatory confidentiality upon complainants likely serves to deter rather than encourage the filing of some complaints. See R.M. v. Sup.Ct., 883 A.2d at 380 ([N]ot all grievants desire anonymity, and indeed, some grievants may be deterred from filing ethics complaints because they are forbidden from publicizing that fact.); Doe v. Sup.Ct., 734 F.Supp. at 985. (noting that it is likely that potential complainants would be dissuaded from initiating disciplinary proceedings when doing so would potentially subject them to a perpetual bar from speaking out about the complaint). By suppressing the speech of those complainants who would reject anonymity, the rule is obviously not narrowly tailored to encourage a grievant to file a complaint. We also note that the confidentiality rule is simply not designed or tailored to address the concern raised by Mr. Plattsmier, that some grievants will not file a complaint unless their identity can be hidden from the respondent attorney. [70] We first note that La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A)(1) indicates that the respondent attorney may waive the confidentiality of the proceeding. [71] Second, in the interest of due process, our current disciplinary rules require that before the ODC recommends a disposition other than dismissal or stay, the respondent attorney must be notified in writing of the substance of the complaint and be afforded an opportunity to be heard. La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 11(B)(2). In many cases, the substance of the complaint will reveal the identity of the complainant. Furthermore, in keeping with the spirit of Rule XIX, § 11(B)(2), and to serve the practical needs of the investigation which they are required to conduct, the ODC has adopted the common practice of simply forwarding each complaint, as submitted, directly to the respondent attorney. See Rule XIX, § 4(B)(1) and (2) (describing the ODC's duty to screen and investigate all information coming to the attention of the disciplinary agency). The standard complaint forms used by the ODC, when completed, include the name of the grievant, and thus the anonymity of the grievant is lifted when the respondent attorney reviews the complaint. This state of affairs was discussed during the hearing before the commissioner. We note the following interchange: [Counsel for Mr. Warner]: . . . Isn't it [the ODC's] practice to take the complaint, with the complainant's name on it, and just forward it directly to the lawyer? [Mr. Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel]: Yes, sir. [Counsel for Mr. Warner]: So the lawyer, even a big, powerful lawyer, from the very beginning of the proceedings knows who the complainant is? [Mr. Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel]: In almost every instance, that's true . . .    [Counsel for Mr. Warner]: So the confidentiality rule doesn't shield the complainant's identity or information from the respondent? [Mr. Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel]: That's true. Louisiana is not unique in this regard. Two courts have gone so far as to say that `[t]he lawyer who may be the target of the complaint surely will learn about the grievance and the identity of the complainant, whether the procedures are deemed confidential or not.' See R.M. v. Sup.Ct., 883 A.2d at 380 (quoting Doe v. Sup.Ct. 734 F.Supp. at 985). [72]
Finally, we note that counsel for Mr. Warner presented a witness at the hearing before the commissioner who testified that there is a less-speech restrictive alternative to our present confidentiality rule which effectively encourages the filing of complaints and the cooperation of witnesses in an attorney discipline system. Mr. Steve Corbally testified that he previously worked as an investigator for the agency equivalent to our ODC in Massachusetts. While in that capacity he became familiar with the Massachusetts confidentiality rule for attorney disciplinary proceedings. According to Mr. Corbally, the Massachusetts rule in place at the time of his employment only imposed confidentiality on employees or agents of the disciplinary agency. [73] In contrast to our present confidentiality regime, under the Massachusetts rule there was no gag order placed on nonagency participants including complainants, the accused attorneys, or witnesses. After the Massachusetts confidentiality regime had been explained, Counsel for Mr. Warner asked Mr. Corbally, In Massachusetts . . . did you have problems with getting witnesses to cooperate? Mr. Corbally replied, No. Counsel for Mr. Warner then asked Mr. Corbally, How about in getting people to file complaints? Mr. Corbally replied, No problem with that. When a plausible, less restrictive alternative is offered to a content-based speech restriction, it is the Government's obligation to prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its goals. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. at 816, 120 S.Ct. at 1888. A court should not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective . . . Id., 529 U.S. at 824, 120 S.Ct. 1878; See also Ashcroft, 542 U.S. at 665, 124 S.Ct. at 2791 (When plaintiffs challenge a content-based speech restriction, the burden is on the Government to prove that the proposed alternatives will not be as effective as the challenged statute.) (citation omitted). Counsel for Mr. Warner presented evidence of a plausible alternative to our present confidentiality regime which suppresses less speech and apparently is sufficient to achieve the interests the ODC has asserted under this header. The ODC has failed to present any evidence or argument to show that this less restrictive alternative would be an ineffective method of attaining its goals. Thus, the ODC has failed to meet its burden to prove that the present confidentiality rule created by La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A) and (I) is narrowly tailored to serve the interests we address under this header.
The third interest asserted by the ODC is the state's interest in protecting client confidences from unnecessary public disclosure. At the root of this concern is Rule 1.6(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that an attorney may reveal privileged information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary in several situations, including to establish a defense to a disciplinary complaint. Several of the witnesses testifying on behalf of the ODC at the hearing before the commissioner acknowledged that the Rules of Professional Conduct clearly allow for the disclosure of privileged information, but suggested that the confidentiality rule serves to minimize any potential damage to the client which might result from this exception to privilege. Again, the confidentiality rule mandates that participants not divulge information regarding the proceedings unless or until formal charges are filed. Since many charges are dismissed or addressed using private discipline, and thus are perpetually considered confidential matters, the ODC argues the confidentiality rule protects much of the confidential information which is disclosed during disciplinary investigations from public exposure. Assuming arguendo that the interest here asserted is sufficiently compelling to suppress speech, we find that the confidentiality rule created by La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A) and (I) still fails to survive strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to promote this asserted interest. As it regards this interest, the confidentiality rule is overinclusive. The rule not only bars disclosure of client confidences, it bars disclosure of all information pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, Mr. Plattsmier stated that upwards of eighty percent of all the complaints filed with the ODC are from nonlawyers. He also stated that most of the individuals comprising this eighty percent, are clients filing against their own lawyers, so that there's [sic, there are] no confidences that are being breached, as communications are exchanged between the complainant, the ODC, and the respondent attorney during the investigation of the complaint. Thus, in the majority of cases, the imposition of confidentiality upon the complainant is excessive and unnecessary as it regards this interest.
The fourth and final potential compelling interest asserted by the ODC is the state's interest in helping to prevent abuses in the disciplinary process. The example abuses given by the witnesses testifying on behalf of the ODC at the hearing before the commissioner were modeled after the fact pattern in the instant matter. The witnesses noted that under Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is obligated to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of any matter. As discussed in the section above, in the process of responding to a disciplinary complaint, an attorney is allowed to reveal privileged client information under Rule 1.6(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The record in the present case demonstrates that sometimes, to serve the practical needs of an investigation, the ODC forwards the accused attorney's response to the complaint, including any confidential information disclosed, to the complainant for further comment and response. In a situation where the complainant is an opposing attorney in ongoing litigation, this situation is ripe for abuse. The attorney disciplinary investigation process may place information that would normally be protected from discovery in parallel civil or criminal litigation, under the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, into the hands of the opposition. The ODC argues the confidentiality rule is necessary to prevent the opposing attorney/complainant from then using the otherwise unobtainable information that they receive during the investigation of a disciplinary complaint to their benefit in the pending civil or criminal litigation. If allowed to go unchecked, the ODC asserts that this second avenue of discovery could threaten the separation of powers, hindering the legislature's ability to enact rules of discovery. [74] Assuming arguendo that the state's interest in preventing abuse of the disciplinary process is a compelling interest, we find that the confidentiality rule created by La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A) and (I) still fails to survive strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to promote this asserted interest. A less-speech restrictive alternative which would adequately serve this interest is readily apparent. This court could simply adopt a rule which specifically prohibits the use of information gained in a disciplinary proceeding in civil or criminal proceedings. See Ashcroft, 542 U.S. at 666, 124 S.Ct. at 2791 (noting that the least restrictive alternative test does not begin with the status quo of existing regulations, but rather the court should ask whether the challenged regulation is the least restrictive means among available, effective alternatives); Consolidated Edison, 447 U.S. at 542 n. 11, 100 S.Ct. at 2336 (noting a readily apparent less-speech restrictive alternative was available that would address the state interest). [75]