Opinion ID: 1166598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: superior court's authority to suspend appellant from practice

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court exceeded its authority in suspending him from practice before the trial courts in the Third Judicial District as a means of enforcing payment of the $100 sanction. Appellant argues that the supervision and discipline of attorneys is the exclusive province of the Supreme Court of Alaska and cites Alaska Bar Rule 9 in support of this contention. Rule 9 provides in part: Any attorney admitted to practice law in this State or any attorney allowed to appear and participate by a court of this State for a particular proceeding is subject to the supervision of the Supreme Court of Alaska (hereinafter called the Court) and the Disciplinary Board hereinafter established. (emphasis added). Rule 9 further provides that the Supreme Court's disciplinary powers should not be construed to deny to any other court such powers as are necessary for that court to maintain control and supervision over proceedings conducted before it, such as the power of contempt. (emphasis added). We are not persuaded that the superior court needs the power of suspension in order to maintain control and supervision over proceedings conducted before it. The contempt power is an adequate means by which the superior court may maintain the orderly and efficient operation of the courtroom. Recognizing the intensity of the feelings often generated by even momentary confrontations between counsel or the court and counsel in the trial arena there is always some danger of hasty or ill-considered action. To allow a trial court to suspend attorneys for contemptuous conduct, at such moments, carries too great a danger that conscientious lawyers might be deterred from zealously representing their clients. As we stated in McKinnon v. State, 526 P.2d 18 (Alaska 1974), which concerned the dismissal of an attorney by the trial court, the threat of summary dismissal for provoking the trial judge's displeasure could intimidate the trial bar and discourage tenacious trial representation. 526 P.2d at 23. Accordingly, we hold that the trial courts do not have authority to suspend attorneys from practice. Only this court may impose such a disciplinary measure in an exercise of its supervisory power over the Bar in this state. The contempt sanction is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for such further action as the superior court chooses to take consistent with this opinion.