Opinion ID: 2551505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the screening panel

Text: ¶ 21 Pendleton argues that the disciplinary court erred in allowing the OPC to pursue this action in the district court without first proceeding through a screening panel. In addition, he alleges that the OPC was not entitled to raise additional allegations in its formal complaint outside the scope of those allegations raised in the motion for interim suspension. ¶ 22 In the typical case, a disciplinary proceeding is initiated by the filing of an informal complaint with the OPC. See RLDD 10(a)(1). After the informal complaint is filed, the OPC has the opportunity to conduct a preliminary investigation into the allegations of misconduct, see RLDD 10(a)(3), and the respondent attorney may respond to the allegations raised in the informal complaint, see RLDD 10(a)(5). Unless OPC counsel determines that the informal complaint is nonmeritorious, the OPC then refers the case to a screening panel, see RLDD 10(a)(5)-(6), whose purpose is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that there are grounds for public discipline and that a formal complaint is merited, RLDD 11(a). If the screening panel concludes that probable cause exists, then the OPC can file with the district court a formal complaint setting forth in plain and concise language the facts upon which the charge of unprofessional conduct is based and the applicable provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Id. ¶ 23 However, it is not always necessary for the OPC to have a screening panel's recommendation before filing a formal complaint. When applicable, rules 18 and 19 enable the OPC to file a petition for interim suspension directly with the district court without going through a screening panel. First, rule 18 applies when the lawyer poses a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public and has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. RLDD 18(a). When the district court orders interim suspension under rule 18, the OPC is entitled to file a formal complaint in the district court. See RLDD 18(b)(2). ¶ 24 Second, rule 19 applies when the lawyer has been convicted of a crime which reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. RLDD 19(b). If a lawyer is convicted of a crime that falls within the purview of rule 19, the OPC may file concurrently a motion for interim suspension and a formal complaint. See RLDD 19(b). In sum, both rule 18 and rule 19 obviate the need for the OPC to proceed through a screening panel for a determination of probable cause before filing a formal complaint. ¶ 25 Rules 18 and 19 do not, however, alter the requisites of the formal complaint. These requirementswhich apply to proceedings that are screened by a panel or are commenced directly in the district courtare listed in rule 11(a). This rule states that the formal complaint shall set[] forth in plain and concise language the facts upon which the charge of unprofessional conduct is based and the applicable provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. RLDD 11(a). These broad requirements thus permit the OPC to include in its complaint any facts on which its disciplinary proceeding will be based. The formal complaint need not be limited to the specific allegations that supported the petition for interim suspension. ¶ 26 In the instant case, four separate counts of drug-related offenses were filed against Pendleton in the criminal court. After discovering the pending criminal charges against Pendleton, the OPC filed a petition for interim suspension in the disciplinary court under rule 18. The allegations on which the rule 18 petition was based were Pendleton's pending criminal charges and the alleged conduct that prompted those charges. The disciplinary court granted the petition and suspended Pendleton. Subsequently, the criminal court convicted Pendleton for use or possession of methamphetamine. After Pendleton was convicted, the OPC filed a formal complaint in the disciplinary court. The formal complaint included not only the allegations stated in the earlier petition for interim suspension, but also the fact that Pendleton's conviction had been entered, along with evidence of additional purported misconduct that was discovered after the rule 18 petition was filed. ¶ 27 As rule 18 makes clear, it was proper for the OPC to file a formal complaint after the disciplinary court ordered interim suspension under rule 18. Under this rule, it was unnecessary for the OPC to proceed first through a screening panel. Moreover, nothing precluded the OPC from including in its formal complaint additional allegations of purported misconduct that arose or were discovered after the petition for interim suspension was filed. Our review of the formal complaint indicates that it satisfied the basic requirements outlined in rule 11(a). Furthermore, although we stated in our previous order that it was error for the disciplinary court to order interim suspension under rule 18, we stayed the interim suspension of Pendleton pending final disposition of the disciplinary proceeding against him. We did not stay the ongoing final disciplinary proceeding or in any way limit the scope of the formal complaint that had been filed in the disciplinary court. Rather, our order made clear that Pendleton's conduct was certainly reprehensible and constitute[d] grounds for disciplinary proceedings. ¶ 28 In addition, even after we stayed the interim suspension under rule 18, the OPC was still entitled to file a motion for interim suspension under rule 19. We made this clear in our earlier order, recognizing that by that time, Pendleton had been convicted of a crime that reflect[ed] adversely on [Pendleton]'s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. RLDD 19(b). However, when the OPC filed the rule 19 motion for interim suspension, there was no need for the OPC to file another formal complaint. The rule 19 motion simply requested the interim suspension of Pendleton pending the final discipline that the OPC already sought by having filed the formal complaint. Finally, because the OPC satisfied the requirements of rule 19, there was no need for the OPC to proceed through a screening panel at this stage of the disciplinary proceeding. Pendleton's first claim of error thus fails.