Opinion ID: 1609069
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reputational Interest

Text: We first review the state's asserted interest in protecting the reputations of lawyers who have not committed an ethical violation. Much of the testimony presented at the hearing regarding this interest tended to support the general proposition that an attorney's reputation is valuable and merits special protection. For instance, Mr. Stanley testified that a lawyer's reputation is their stock and trade. And when once lost, it's almost impossible to regain. While we agree that an attorney's reputation is valuable, we must reiterate that the confidentiality rule leaves an attorney's reputation open to a substantial amount of injury. The confidentiality mandated by La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A) and (I) prohibits participants from speaking only about the disciplinary proceedings. The confidentiality rule does not prohibit, for instance, complainants from describing in detail the events inspiring their request for disciplinary action to anyone they wish. Likewise, other participants can share information they have obtained independent of the proceedings with the general public. Furthermore, the record shows that disciplinary complaints are sometimes accompanied by civil or criminal suits which are rooted in the same underlying fact pattern. Participants may speak freely about these related suits. Thus, the interest at issue is not the protection of an attorney's reputation generally; rather, the interest is in protecting a lawyer's reputation from the injury which might arise from the release of information specifically relating to the attorney disciplinary process. In regard to this narrower interest, Mr. Shea testified that while information regarding the substance of the complaint may already be publicly known, the filing of a complaint means something different to the general public. According to Mr. Shea, the filing of the complaint insinuates there is some basis to the complaint. He stated, You have good lawyers who get these complaints against them, and if every one of these things got out and became public, that would affect their standing. Chief Disciplinary Counsel Plattsmier testified that, especially in small towns, publication of complaints against attorneys would have had a substantial detrimental affect upon not only their practice, whether guilty or innocent, but it would have ruined their reputation for them. As we previously noted, in making the legal determination as to whether a particular interest qualifies as compelling under strict scrutiny, a court has little guidance unless the Supreme Court has provided some direction regarding the state interest at issue. We find that the Supreme Court has provided guidance as to reputational interests in the context of government investigations in two cases, Landmark, 435 U.S. 829, 98 S.Ct. 1535, and Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 110 S.Ct. 1376, 108 L.Ed.2d 572 (1990). In Landmark, the Court reviewed a Virginia statute which made it a crime to divulge information regarding proceedings before the state commission authorized to hear complaints related to judicial disability or misconduct. 435 U.S. at 830-831, 98 S.Ct. 1535. The statute required that the commission's proceedings remain confidential unless or until charges were filed with the state supreme court. Id., 435 U.S. at 830 n. 1, 98 S.Ct. 1535. Virginia, like the ODC in the present case, attempted to justify this suppression of speech on the basis of reputational interests. The state asserted the confidentiality rule protected judges from the reputational injury that would result from the publication of unfounded allegations of misconduct. Id., 435 U.S. at 840, 98 S.Ct. 1535. Considering this interest, the Supreme Court held: Admittedly, the Commonwealth has an interest in protecting the good repute of its judges, like that of all other public officials. Our prior cases have firmly established, however, that injury to official reputation is an insufficient reason for repressing speech that would otherwise be free. Id., 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. at 1543 (internal quotations omitted and citations omitted). While attorneys are not recognized as public officials in the same sense as judges are, we have long held that attorneys are officers of the courts. Chittenden v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 00-0414 (La.5/15/01), 788 So.2d 1140, 1148; State v. Woodville, 161 La. 125, 108 So. 309, 311 (1926); Accord Petition of Brooks, 678 A.2d at 144. Accordingly, we agree with the New Hampshire Supreme Court that, the fundamental importance of the first amendment, combined with the role of attorneys as officers of the court, compels the application of similar principles of free expression to the reputational interests of attorneys . . . Petition of Brooks, 678 A.2d at 144-145; See also Doe v. Sup.Ct., 734 F.Supp. at 986 (reasoning that if the interest in maintaining the reputation of the judiciary is insufficient to justify the suppression of speech, then the interest in maintaining the reputation of lawyers or the bar is equally insufficient). In Butterworth, the Court reiterated that reputational interests are insufficient to justify the suppression of speech. 494 U.S. 624, 110 S.Ct. 1376. In that case, the Court considered the constitutionality of a Florida statute which generally prohibited grand jury witnesses from ever divulging the substance of their testimony. Id., 494 U.S. at 626-627, 110 S.Ct. 1376. In their analysis, the Court reviewed Florida's interest in ensuring that persons that were accused but exonerated by the grand jury will not be held up to public ridicule. Id., 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. 1376 (quotations and citation omitted). We note that, unlike the interest in Landmark, 435 U.S. at 840-842, 98 S.Ct. 1535, this reputational interest was not limited to that of public officials; it included the reputational interest of private citizens as well. Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. 1376; See also Doe v. Doe, 127 S.W.3d at 734 (making the same observation). The Court recognized that this interest was a substantial state interest. Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. 1376. Yet, despite the broader scope of the reputational interest at issue in Butterworth, the Supreme Court held that the principle established in Landmark, 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. 1535, applied with equal force, stating our decisions establish that absent exceptional circumstances, reputational interests alone cannot justify the proscription of truthful speech. Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. at 1382 (citing several cases including Landmark, 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. at 1542-1543). We note that all four courts that have completed an in-depth First Amendment analysis of confidentiality rules in the context of an attorney discipline system have found that the state's interest in protecting the reputation of attorneys did not qualify as a compelling interest sufficient to justify the suppression of speech. Three of the four courts based their decision on Landmark, 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. 1535. Petition of Brooks, 678 A.2d at 144-145; R.M. v. Sup.Ct., 883 A.2d at 377-378; Doe v. Sup.Ct., 734 F.Supp. at 986. The Tennessee Supreme Court based its decision on Landmark, 435 U.S. at 841-842, 98 S.Ct. 1535, and Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 634, 110 S.Ct. 1376. Doe v. Doe, 127 S.W.3d at 734 (Applying the principles of these cases, we conclude that to the extent a legitimate interest in reputation is at stake in requiring confidentiality . . . such interest should not be recognized as compelling.). We agree with the conclusions of our fellow courts. While protecting the reputations of ethical attorneys is clearly an important interest, as we interpret the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, this interest does not qualify as compelling. Thus, this state interest fails to satisfy the requirements of the strict scrutiny analysis.