Opinion ID: 1609069
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: In Practice, A Requirement of Perpetual Confidentiality In the Majority of Cases

Text: Under La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A) and (I), a participant in the attorney disciplinary process is required to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings until the filing and service of formal charges. Since the majority of disciplinary complaints are reviewed and addressed without the filing of formal charges, the rule, in practice, requires participants in the majority of cases to maintain confidentiality for all time. The record shows that the majority of disciplinary complaints are either dismissed or addressed using private discipline. The testimony tendered at the hearing before the commissioner revealed that approximately 3,000 to 3,200 complaints are filed with the ODC annually. Mr. Plattsmier testified that the ODC dismisses a substantial percentage of these complaints, finding either that they fail to qualify as a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, that there is not enough evidence to support a good faith prosecution, or that the complaint has little or no merit. Mr. Shea stated that a significant number of the complaints that are not dismissed are addressed using private discipline, such as a private admonition or a diversion to one of several educational programs. See La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 10(A)(5) and (A)(9). The ODC is authorized to pursue private discipline when the disciplinary agency finds evidence of minor misconduct with little or no injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession. Rule XIX, § 10(A)(5); See also Rule XIX, § 10(A)(9). When a complaint is dismissed or private discipline is imposed formal charges are never filed, and thus the participants in these disciplinary matters must maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings in perpetuity. Furthermore, though La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A)(1) authorizes a respondent attorney to waive the confidentiality of the proceedings, the testimony tendered at the hearing before the commissioner suggests that such a waiver rarely occurs. [47] The reason for the rare exercise of this right is obvious. Given the typical situation, where a complaint is dismissed or private discipline is imposed, a respondent's waiver of confidentiality would remove an otherwise perpetual shield against public scrutiny of the disciplinary complaint and its final disposition.