Opinion ID: 1609069
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Less Restrictive Alternative Presented To Serve These Interests

Text: 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.