Opinion ID: 1408147
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bar Counsel has a right to appeal.

Text: As a preliminary matter, Triem argues that Bar Counsel cannot appeal the Board's acquittal of him because attorney disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and an appeal would violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Triem's argument against the validity of an appeal by Bar Counsel is unpersuasive. [J]eopardy in either its constitutional or its common law sense[] has a strict application to criminal prosecutions only. A disciplinary proceeding ... is not criminal in nature, but is sui generis, being an exercise of the inherent power and jurisdiction of this court over attorneys as officers of the court. In re Mackay, 416 P.2d 823, 838 (Alaska 1964) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1003, 86 S.Ct. 1907, 16 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1966). Triem argues that In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 551, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968), decided after Mackay and holding that attorney discipline proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, dictates that double jeopardy protections apply to such proceedings and thus prohibit Bar Counsel's appeal. Ruffalo, however, dealt with the specific question of what level of due process protection a respondent attorney was owed with respect to notice of the charges against him. Id. at 550-51, 88 S.Ct. at 1225-26. As Bar Counsel points out, commentators and courts treat Ruffalo as being limited to procedural due process concerns. Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. & W. William Hodes, The Law of Lawyering § 8.1:102, at 923 (2d ed. Supp. 1996) (stating that virtually all courts have concluded that the Supreme Court's characterization [of disciplinary proceedings as quasi-criminal] ... was made in the narrower context of assessing the applicability of procedural Due Process concerns, such as entitlement to notice of the charges); see also, Rosenthal v. Justices of the Supreme Court of California, 910 F.2d 561, 564 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1087, 111 S.Ct. 963, 112 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1991) (A lawyer disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal proceeding. As a result, normal protections afforded a criminal defendant do not apply. (citation omitted)); Mississippi State Bar v. Young, 509 So.2d 210, 213 n. 1 (Miss. 1987) (Most states which have addressed the matter have held that disciplinary proceedings are not so criminal in nature as to evoke double jeopardy protections.). Double jeopardy is a substantive due process protection and therefore is not extended to attorney grievances under Ruffalo. [9]