Opinion ID: 1463399
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board of Overseers as a Party

Text: As a threshold matter, the Board of Overseers of the Bar argues that it was not a proper party to Nisbet's suit. Citing the opinion of this Court in Inhabitants of the Town of Boothbay Harbor v. Russell, Me., 410 A.2d 554 (1980), the Board argues that an administrative body, such as itself, that serves only to adjudicate disputes impartially cannot be made a party to an action challenging one of its decisions. While the Board has properly interpreted our holding in Russell, the argument misconceives the Board's status in the present litigation. In Russell, the plaintiff was challenging a Zoning Board of Appeals' construction of a municipal zoning ordinance. The Zoning Board of Appeals had no discretion as to its jurisdiction, no power to enforce the zoning ordinance, and no interest in the outcome of the case as a matter of policy. Furthermore, the Zoning Board of Appeals had not refused to exercise an adjudicatory function that was within its power to perform. Here, in contrast, it was alleged that the Board of Overseers of the Bar had decided, as a matter of policy, to allow Faunce to withdraw his petition for fee arbitration and thereby to forestall an arbitration proceeding. Nisbet's petition for review of governmental action was in the nature of a mandamus seeking to compel the Board of Overseers to bring the fee dispute to arbitration. Nisbet maintained that the Board was under a legal obligation to retain Faunce's petition and to set the matter for hearing; the Board objected that the decision to proceed with arbitration was left to the client and that the Board had no power or duty to arbitrate the fee dispute without the client's consent. In essence, the matter at issue was the Board's interpretation of its own power to compel fee arbitration. In these circumstances, the Board of Oversees was sufficiently interested in the outcome of the dispute to be made a party defendant. Indeed, if Nisbet had been successful in arguing that Faunce had no right to withdraw his petition, the Board of Overseers would not have been bound by the court's decision unless it had been joined as a party. Thus, we conclude that the Board was properly named as a defendant in Nisbet's complaint.