Opinion ID: 2561829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the writ for extraordinary relief is proper

Text: The disciplinary action against Mr. Bowen arose from an informal complaint governed by rule 14-510 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice. The Rules Governing the Utah State Bar are found in chapter 14 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice. Article 5 of chapter 14, titled Lawyer Discipline and Disability,, contains the rules governing disciplinary actions against lawyers. ¶ 9 According to article 5, a disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against any member of the Bar by filing an informal complaint with the Bar. Sup.Ct. R. of Prof I Practice, 14-510(a)(1). Following a preliminary investigation by OPC's counsel to ascertain whether the informal complaint warrants further action, the OPC may, among other things, refer the complaint to a screening panel for additional review. Id. at 14-510(a)(4)-(5). The screening panel conducts a hearing to determine whether to recommend further informal action to the Ethics and Discipline Committee Chair to resolve the matter or to initiate a formal complaint against the respondent in district court. Id. at 14-510(b)(5). ¶ 10 According to rule 14-511(g), disciplinary orders of district courts entered pursuant to the formal complaint process are appealable to this court. There is no procedural provision, however, for obtaining judicial review of disciplinary orders finally resolved by the Ethics and Discipline Committee such as the order in this case. See. Utah Sup.Ct. R. of Prof'l Practice, 14-510, -511, -512. Therefore, because there is currently no established means for judicial review available to Mr. Bowen, this court finds that his petition for extraordinary relief was proper. We are still free, however, to exercise discretion in deciding whether the facts warrant granting the relief sought. State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, 1124, 127 P.3d 682. We turn now to a consideration of Mr. Bowen's claims.