Opinion ID: 2823236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Court’s Authority and Jurisdiction

Text: The respondent challenges the authority of this Court to regulate attorneys, as well as its and the board’s jurisdiction over matters of attorney discipline. More specifically, respondent contends that this Court’s power is limited to appellate jurisdiction over statutory courts and/or that the judiciary’s inherent power is limited to adjudicating cases and controversies. He appears to argue that this Court’s creation of disciplinary procedures and the disciplinary board, as well as this Court’s promulgation of rules of professional conduct, are exercises of legislative power not delegated by the General Assembly and are, therefore, violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. Contrary to respondent’s protestations, “[i]t is well settled that the authority of the Supreme Court to discipline the members of the bar    is plenary in nature.” In re Lallo, 768 A.2d 921, 924 (R.I. 2001). As this Court explained almost eighty years ago: 11 We note that respondent’s motions and memoranda are less than models of clarity, and we have employed our best efforts to decipher and address his various constitutional claims. The following verbatim quote is but one example of the manner in which respondent composed his memoranda submitted to this Court: “It was a violation of due process to have been civilly prosecuted by a persons appointed by the Supreme Court to prosecute for McKenna for violations created by illegal legislative actions of the R.I. Supreme Court. It was violation of Due Process to have those self-legislated rules enforced by the Judicial Bank and not be enforced by Executive regulatory appointment not appointed by the Governor.” 12 The respondent also appears to claim that the disciplinary process has violated his rights under the First Amendment; however, his discussion of this issue is perfunctory at best, and certainly insufficient to form a cognizable claim for us to address. See Manchester v. Pereira, 926 A.2d 1005, 1015 n.8 (R.I. 2007) (repeating well-established rule that this Court will not substantively address an issue that is not adequately briefed). - 14 - “In Rhode Island, at least since the adoption of the State Constitution, [the power to license attorneys and admit them to practice] has been vested in this [C]ourt. The General Assembly has conceded this by section 2, chapter 322, G.L. 1923, wherein it is declared that: ‘The [S]upreme [C]ourt    shall by general or special rules regulate the admission of attorneys to practice in all the courts of the state.’[13] This language has long been accepted by common consent to be declaratory of the power inherent in this [C]ourt to control and supervise the practice of law generally, whether in or out of court. A careful examination of the public laws, even before the adoption of the Constitution, and as far back as the year 1800, fails to reveal an enactment of the General Assembly assuming to regulate the matter by statute. On the other hand, there is ample evidence of the exercise of this power as a matter of course by the Superior Court of Judicature established in 1746-47 which was the predecessor of this [C]ourt until 1798, when it became the Supreme Judicial Court.” Rhode Island Bar Association v. Automobile Service Association, 55 R.I. 122, 12930, 179 A. 139, 142 (1935). 14 “This broadbased power includes the power to supervise, administrate, discipline, and serve the needs of the public in all facets of the courts.” In the Matter of Almeida, 611 A.2d 1375, 1381 (R.I. 1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68, 7374 (R.I. 2011). It further includes “the authority to exercise necessary means to regulate and control the practice of law by promulgating and enforcing rules to discipline attorneys.” Id. at 1382. “Since the early days of English common law, it has been widely recognized that courts possess the inherent power to regulate the conduct of attorneys who practice before them and to discipline or disbar such of those attorneys as are guilty of unprofessional conduct.” Howell v. State Bar of Texas, 843 F.2d 205, 206 (5th Cir. 1988); see In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 643 (1985) (“Courts have long recognized an inherent authority to suspend or disbar lawyers.    This inherent power derives from the lawyer’s role as an officer of the court which granted 13 This statute is now codified at G.L. 1956 § 8-1-2. 14 This Court went on to explain the historical roots of this institutional structure in common law England. See Rhode Island Bar Association v. Automobile Service Association, 55 R.I. 122, 132-33, 179 A. 139, 143-44 (1935). - 15 - admission.”); see also In re Petition of Almond, 603 A.2d 1087, 1087 (R.I. 1992) (“This court is responsible for promulgating rules regulating the practice of law and ethical standards for the conduct of attorneys admitted to the Rhode Island Bar.”). 15 The passage of the separation of powers amendments in 2004 did not in any way dilute, but rather served to solidify and strengthen, this inherent judicial authority. In 2004, article 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution was amended to provide that the powers of the Rhode Island government are distributed into “three separate and distinct departments: the legislative, executive and judicial.” R.I. const., art. 5. “In practice, this doctrine operates to confine legislative powers to the legislature, executive powers to the executive department, and judicial powers to the judiciary    .” In re Request for Advisory Opinion from House of Representatives (Coastal Resources Management Council), 961 A.2d 930, 933 (R.I. 2008). Just as “the separation of powers amendments did not, either explicitly or implicitly,[] limit or abolish the power of the General Assembly in any other area where we have previously found its jurisdiction to be plenary,” see id. at 935-36, the separation of powers amendments reinforced the judiciary’s previously recognized plenary powers, including the power to regulate the practice of law. See State v. Germane, 971 A.2d 555, 590 (R.I. 2009) (separation of powers doctrine prohibits “unwarranted legislative invasion of the judicial power”). Accordingly, this Court has the authority, as it has had since its inception, to promulgate and enforce rules of conduct and procedure for the regulation of attorneys, as well as to exercise necessary means to regulate and control the practice of law. This includes appointing 15 See also G.L. 1956 § 8-6-2 (judicial authority to promulgate rules of practice and procedure); G.L. 1956 § 11-27-18 (recognizing right of this Court to regulate and discipline members of the bar); G.L. 1956 § 7-5.1-2(2) (identifying the Supreme Court as the regulatory agency for attorneys at law); G.L. 1956 § 7-16-3.1 (applying § 7-5.1-2(2) to professional limited liability companies). - 16 - disciplinary counsel, creating the board to carry out this Court’s disciplinary powers, and subpoenaing witnesses and materials in investigations related to attorney misconduct. Next, respondent claims that the appointment of disciplinary counsel as a “special prosecutor” and use of the subpoena power are exercises of the executive power and violate the separation of powers doctrine, and he also maintains that the General Assembly has not delegated the subpoena power to the Supreme Court. We can find no legitimate basis for respondent’s assertion that the subpoena power is an executive power or that it must be delegated to the judiciary by the General Assembly. See, e.g., State v. Guido, 698 A.2d 729, 734 (R.I. 1997) (recognizing “the subpoena power of the judiciary”); Bartlett v. Danti, 503 A.2d 515, 517 (R.I. 1986) (same); Donatelli Building Co. v. Cranston Loan Co., 87 R.I. 293, 297, 140 A.2d 705, 707 (1958) (recognizing court’s inherent power to issue subpoenas); see also Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409 (1988) (“To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence    ”) (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974)). The Court, the board, and lawyers licensed to practice in Rhode Island, as officers of the Court, including Disciplinary Counsel, may all properly exercise the judiciary’s inherent subpoena power. See In re Snyder, 472 U.S. at 644 (recognizing that “as an officer of the court, a lawyer can cause persons to drop their private affairs and be called as witnesses in court, and for depositions and other pretrial processes,” although “subject to the ultimate control of the court”). Similarly, respondent’s contention that this Court’s appointment of an Assistant Disciplinary Counsel as a “special prosecutor” is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine—contrary to the advisory opinion in In re House of Representatives (Special Prosecutor), 575 A.2d 176 (R.I. 1990)—is misguided. In that matter, at the request of the House - 17 - of Representatives, the five members of this Court issued an advisory opinion, opining that proposed legislation relating to the appointment of special prosecutors by the Chief Justice for crimes involving public officials was unconstitutional. See id. at 176-77, 180. The justices reasoned that, under the principle of separation of powers, the legislation impermissibly encroached upon the power of the judiciary and threatened its independence. See id. at 178-79. It did so by permitting the Chief Justice both to appoint and supervise special prosecutors (which included defining the scope of the special prosecutors’ jurisdiction, releasing the special prosecutors’ findings to the public, and removing special prosecutors) and to review on appeal any felony prosecutions tried by the special prosecutor. Id. at 179. The justices concluded that these conflicting roles by the Chief Justice “threaten[ed] the institutional integrity of the Judicial Branch.” Id. (quoting Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 851 (1986)). The proposed legislation at issue in In re House of Representatives impermissibly transferred to the judiciary a fundamental executive power—specifically, the “power and discretion to prosecute crimes”—which power is vested in the Office of the Attorney General by the Rhode Island Constitution. See In re House of Representatives, 575 A.2d at 179-80; see also R.I. Const., art. 9, sec. 12. In contrast, the role and function of disciplinary counsel appointed by this Court is a means to carry out an inherent judicial function: the regulation of attorneys. Furthermore, this Court is not, in the context of attorney discipline, jeopardizing its function as the court of last resort of criminal matters. Rather, this Court is the only tribunal with authority over matters of attorney discipline. See In re Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline, 916 A.2d 746, 751 (R.I. 2007) (noting that this Court has “steadfastly held” that the authority of this Court to discipline the bar and bench is “plenary and exclusive”). This Court has established - 18 - disciplinary procedures that allow initial screening and review by the board, with the assistance of Disciplinary Counsel, in order to safeguard the due process rights of attorneys subject to discipline. Furthermore, in the event an attorney disciplinary proceeding uncovers the possibility that a crime may have been committed, such matters are referred to the Office of the Attorney General to investigate and act on in accordance with its prosecutorial discretion. The respondent further argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction over attorney conduct outside of the Supreme Court’s proceedings and, specifically, that attorney conduct in the Workers’ Compensation Court, the Federal Bankruptcy Court, and “professional offices” falls outside of this Court’s jurisdiction. The respondent’s contention that this Court’s jurisdiction over attorney conduct is limited to actions in the Supreme Court is not warranted in law or fact. Not only would respondent’s argument render much of the professional rules of conduct nugatory, it is contrary to the wellestablished “power inherent in this [C]ourt to control and supervise the practice of law generally, whether in or out of court.” Rhode Island Bar Association, 55 R.I. at 129-30, 179 A. at 142 (emphasis added). Especially considering how few attorneys come before the Supreme Court and how infrequent such appearances are by the majority of attorneys who practice in this state, such a rule would utterly prevent this Court from protecting the public from incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible representation. Rather, the ethical standards imposed on attorneys historically have extended—and do still extend—beyond the courtroom. See id. at 134, 179 A. at 144 (in the English colonies, “[a]dmission to the bar meant admission to practice law, and admission to practice law comprehended all the activities of a lawyer in advising and assisting - 19 - others in all matters of law both in and out of court”). 16 Indeed, over a century ago, this Court recognized: “[A]ny conduct which demonstrates a moral condition inconsistent with the proper appreciation and discharge of professional duties and obligations may also form a just basis for disbarment or the imposition of some lesser punishment. In fact, any conduct which would preclude admission to the bar might well justify a disbarment thereafter, whether such conduct be associated with the discharge of strictly professional duties and obligations or clearly separated therefrom.” Crafts v. Lizotte, 34 R.I. 543, 546, 84 A. 1081, 1082 (1912). 17 In accordance with these principles, it is undeniable that this Court may investigate and discipline attorney conduct regardless of where that conduct takes place. Attorneys licensed in Rhode Island are held to the same professional standards whether they are practicing in the Workers’ Compensation Court, in another state court, or in a local federal court. Indeed, this Court has regularly applied Rhode Island’s Rules of Professional Conduct to attorneys practicing in the local federal district court. See, e.g., In the Matter of Schiff, 677 A.2d 422, 423, 425 (R.I. 1996) (suspending attorney from the practice of law for eighteen months for her violation of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct after she submitted a materially false affidavit to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island); In re Petition of Almond, 603 A.2d at 1087, 1090 (denying a federal prosecutor’s petition for waiver of Article V, Rule 3.8 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, which had been based on his contention that 16 See Rhode Island Bar Association, 55 R.I. at 134-35, 179 A. at 144-45 for an historical and indepth discussion rejecting the argument that the regulation of lawyers should be limited to conduct occurring in court. 17 See also Rhode Island Bar Association, 55 R.I. at 135, 179 A. at 144 (quoting the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in In Re Duncan, 65 S.E. 210, 211 (S.C. 1909), as stating that “[i]t is too obvious for discussion that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in courts”); Anderson v. Bosworth, 15 R.I. 443, 445, 8 A. 339, 341 (1887) (“it is now well settled that the jurisdiction [of the court’s disciplinary power] extends to any matter in which an attorney has been employed by reason of his professional character”). - 20 - the rule conflicted with federal rules and standards and was a violation of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution). Further, attorneys are held to the same ethical standards whether they are practicing in court, in a professional office, at home, on the street, over the phone, in a coffee shop, or anywhere else. There are no geographic or location-specific limitations to an attorney’s ethical obligations. Next, respondent claims that the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution prevents this Court from exercising authority over attorney conduct in federal courts. “In analyzing a claim under the supremacy clause, it is axiomatic that the supremacy clause is relevant only when there is impermissible state interference with federal law.” In re Petition of Almond, 603 A.2d at 1090 (citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 712 (1985)). In the instant matter, there is no such interference because the state and federal courts have consistently been in harmony as to the proper ethical conduct of attorneys practicing in their respective courts. For instance, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island has adopted the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct (and any additional standards of conduct set forth in its local rules). See Rule 208 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. In order to practice in the federal Bankruptcy Court in Rhode Island, an attorney must be in good standing with the bar of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island and must be admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. See Rule 9010-1(a) of the Rules of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Rhode Island. Further, there is no indication that these disciplinary proceedings in any way disrupted the bankruptcy proceedings in federal court, which continued to transpire without interruption from this Court, the board, or Disciplinary - 21 - Counsel. Nor has respondent contended that any specific disciplinary charge or applicable Rule of Professional Conduct interferes with a particular federal rule or law. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court may exercise jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters generally, and over respondent specifically.