Opinion ID: 1179647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the court may review a dismissal by the hearing committee.

Text: The lawyer asserts that the Court may not review the dismissal of the complaint by the hearing committee. We disagree. Rule 511 of the Idaho Bar Commission Rules governs the procedures when bar counsel has filed formal charges pursuant to I.B.C.R. 509(c). Under I.B.C.R. 511( l )(4), if after a formal proceeding the hearing committee recommends a public reprimand, either party may seek this Court's review of the recommendation. Under I.B.C.R. 511( l )(5), if after a formal proceeding the hearing committee recommends a public censure, a suspension, or disbarment, then the professional conduct board clerk automatically transmits the recommendation to this Court and either party has the option of seeking this Court's review. I.B.C.R. 511(n), ( o ). Neither of these provisions includes the power for either party to seek review of a dismissal by a hearing committee after formal proceedings. Idaho State Bar v. Daw, 128 Idaho 80, 910 P.2d 752 (1996) indicates the correct disposition of this issue. In Daw, ISB asked this Court to review a private reprimand imposed by a hearing committee, an action which is not included in I.B.C.R. 511 as a reviewable action. ISB sought review by this Court because it wanted a stiffer penalty. The Court explained that I.B.C.R. 511( l )(4) and 511( l )(5) do not allow for review when the hearing committee issues a private reprimand, but allowed ISB review pursuant to I.B.C.R. 509(c), which provides that [e]ither the grievant or the defendant may request review of a private reprimand imposed by bar counsel. 128 Idaho at 82, 910 P.2d at 754. The Court treated bar counsel as the grievant in Daw, because bar counsel effectively stepped into the shoes of the aggrieved individual or entity by filing a complaint to initiate formal proceedings following investigation of the lawyer's alleged misconduct. 128 Idaho at 83, 910 P.2d at 755. In both Daw and in this case, the hearing committee, not bar counsel, disposed of the case. In both Daw and in this case, I.B.C.R. 511 does not allow for review of the hearing committee's disposition because the rule does not contain a provision for review by this Court when the hearing committee issues a private reprimand or when it dismisses the complaint. The hearing committee in Daw issued a private reprimand, an action bar counsel may take pursuant to I.B.C.R. 509(a)(3). In Daw, the Court allowed bar counsel to seek review pursuant to I.B.C.R. 509(c)(9). In this case, the hearing committee dismissed the complaint, which is similar to an action bar counsel may take under I.B.C.R. 509(a)(1). Under this rule, bar counsel may disregard a matter as beyond the purview of the rules. When it dismissed the complaint, the hearing committee, in effect, disregarded the matter as beyond the purview of the rules. Therefore, applying Daw to this case, ISB may seek review of the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to I.B.C.R. 509(c)(9).