Opinion ID: 1247192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Prompt Final Disposition of Disciplinary Charges

Text: (8) Having considered petitioner's contentions in roughly chronological order, we come to what is seemingly his most significant argument: that even if the procedures for placing him involuntarily on inactive status do not violate due process to that point, the failure to guarantee a prompt final disposition of the charges is such a violation and taints the entire proceedings. In so arguing, petitioner relies mainly on the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Gershenfeld v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Pa. (E.D.Pa. 1986) 641 F. Supp. 1419. That decision held unconstitutional the procedures for the temporary suspension of Pennsylvania attorneys because the rules specified no time for making a final decision. But petitioner overlooks a significant point: under the Pennsylvania rules, unlike those we consider here, there was no requirement of a hearing before the attorney could be temporarily suspended from the practice of law. In those circumstances, it is plain that a prompt postdeprivation hearing was constitutionally mandated. ( Barry v. Barchi, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 66 [61 L.Ed.2d at p. 377].) Quite simply, ours is a different case, for the rules provide for a predeprivation hearing, and one we have held satisfies the requirements of due process at that stage. Given that the procedures governing hearings under section 6007, subdivision (c) plainly reduce the time the attorney has to meet the charges against him, however, and give him fewer rights than are enjoyed by attorneys facing adverse action under other statutes, we are persuaded that a final disposition is required at some point to validate the procedures governing the predeprivation hearing. (See Matter of Kenney (1987) 399 Mass. 431 [504 N.E.2d 652, 656].) Indeed, the Legislature, in its most recent amendments to section 6007, subdivision (c) has made it clear that it contemplates just such a further proceeding, calling for expedited treatment of the underlying disciplinary matter if the attorney is placed on inactive status. (New § 6007, subd. (c)(3), added by Stats. 1988, ch. 1159, § 1 [No. 4 Deering's Adv. Legis. Service, p. 4134].) The State Bar has not yet promulgated rules of procedure to implement this new provision, and we do not believe it wise or appropriate for us to establish any fixed constitutional limits at this juncture. The United States Supreme Court has similarly declined to draw any fixed constitutional boundaries in addressing comparable issues, but its decisions do much to refute petitioner's contention that the time for completing formal disciplinary proceedings in this state  estimated by him to exceed one year  is unconstitutionally protracted as a matter of law. In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. at page 547 [84 L.Ed.2d at page 507], the Supreme Court held that a delay of nine months between a temporary suspension and a final adjudication was not unconstitutional per se  and so held in the context of presuspension procedures that offered the charged party a simple opportunity to respond that was far short of a full contested evidentiary hearing, such as is contemplated by the rules implementing section 6007, subdivision (c). A fortiori, the potential for a delay of similar magnitude here cannot be deemed unconstitutional on its face. Most recently, in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Mallen (1988) 486 U.S. 230 [100 L.Ed.2d 265, 108 S.Ct. 1780], the Supreme Court confirmed that the significance of a postsuspension delay cannot be determined in a vacuum, but must be evaluated under the same due process standards applicable to other aspects of a challenged procedure. And those standards do not support petitioner's challenge here. Although petitioner plainly has an interest in a prompt decision, he also has an interest, shared by the State Bar and the public, in a correct one. ( Id. at p.  [100 L.Ed.2d at pp. 278-279, 108 S.Ct. at p. 1788].) We need not here attempt to determine when delay in the final disposition of the underlying disciplinary charges would amount to a denial of due process, although we would question whether a time span of more than one year from inception to the decision of the review department could be countenanced in any circumstances. [8] We trust the State Bar will take note of the guidance provided by Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. 532, and similar decisions in formulating rules of procedure to implement the legislative mandate to expedite resolution of the underlying charges in these cases. [9] The question remains as to what effect the absence of any current regulation should have in the present case. Petitioner argues that because the State Bar had established no definite time limit for the conduct of the formal disciplinary proceedings, the order placing him involuntarily on inactive status was unconstitutional and must be set aside. We cannot agree this is the appropriate remedy. As we have seen, the procedures followed by the State Bar at the involuntary inactive enrollment stage fully satisfied predeprivation constitutional requirements. Insofar as petitioner's complaint relates to the State Bar's failure to hold a reasonably prompt, final adjudicative hearing, his remedy is to seek such a hearing and to request that his involuntary enrollment on inactive status be vacated in the event of unconstitutionally improper delay. In this case, petitioner, of course, sought review (see ante, p. 1112, fn. 2.) immediately after the involuntary inactive enrollment order was issued, at a time when it was not clear if and when formal disciplinary proceedings would be instituted. The State Bar has advised us that the trial in the formal disciplinary proceeding was originally set to commence on October 11, 1988  less than nine months after the order for petitioner's involuntary enrollment on inactive status took effect (cf. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. at p. 547 [84 L.Ed.2d at p. 507])  and was continued to January 1989 at petitioner's insistence. In these circumstances, we cannot conclude that petitioner was denied due process. (3b) We thus find no denial of due process in the rules governing proceedings for the involuntary inactive enrollment of attorneys under the provisions of section 6007, subdivision (c), either on their face or as applied in this case. In each instance, the additional measures petitioner would have us require would serve the interest in avoiding an erroneous decision only slightly, if at all, and would frustrate the significant interest of the State Bar and the public in averting the threat of substantial harm. There remains for our consideration only petitioner's contention that the order in his case was not supported by the evidence.