Opinion ID: 2822141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McGee’s Grievance And Application For Relief

Text: Brant McGee filed a grievance with the Alaska Bar Association against an attorney in the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA).14 The grievance arose from an ongoing dispute between McGee and OPA about OPA’s former contracts with a private criminal defense investigator. McGee has contended the contracting process was corrupt, the investigator is a demonstrated liar, and OPA nonetheless wrongfully continued using the investigator. He also has contended that OPA attorneys, including 12 See Alaska Bar R. 22(e) (“Bar Counsel will have the burden at any hearing of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has, by act or omission, committed misconduct [that is grounds for discipline].”). 13 We do not suggest that an otherwise meritorious grievance should not be formally investigated based solely on an asserted lack of resources. 14 OPA provides legal representation at public expense in a variety of contexts. AS 44.21.400-.410. Among other duties, OPA represents indigent criminal defendants when the Public Defender Agency has a conflict of interest, provides legal representation to indigent respondents in guardianship proceedings, and provides legal representation and guardian ad litem services to children in both custody and child in need of aid cases; it also serves in the role of public guardian. AS 44.21.410(a). -5- 7023 some in administrative and supervising positions within the agency, were guilty of ethical violations either during the contracting process or when allowing the investigator to continue working for OPA when he might be impeached devastatingly at trial to OPA clients’ detriment. McGee’s concerns previously led to proceedings described below and to Bar Counsel’s consideration of five other grievances against OPA attorneys.15 In March 2012 an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a 14-page decision that OPA’s 2011 request for investigator proposals had been unduly restrictive and there was at least an appearance that the ultimate contract winner, the then-current investigator, had been favored. (In the matter before the ALJ, McGee represented an investigator who did not meet the qualifications in the request for proposal.) The ALJ remedially ordered that the contract not be renewed in June 2012; the ALJ also ordered the Department of Administration’s Chief Procurement Officer to investigate an earlier 2006 contract with the investigator to determine whether corrective administrative action or a referral to the Department of Law was necessary. In November 2012, in response to the ALJ’s order and McGee’s follow-up demand that OPA’s former investigator be barred from future contracts, the Chief Procurement Officer issued a 14-page report. He concluded that although there had been problems with OPA’s contracting process, McGee’s allegations about the investigator were mostly untrue and those that were true did not rise to the level that debarment was appropriate. After McGee’s subsequent 16-page letter to the Department’s Commissioner contradicting the Chief Procurement Officer’s report and describing it as a “whitewash,” the Department of Law responded with a 14-page letter in April 2013. 15 These grievances were closed without formal investigations. Our review of these grievance closures was not sought. -6- 7023 It reiterated that although there were some longstanding systemic problems in OPA’s contracting process, no knowing or intentional procurement violations had been uncovered in the investigation and no civil or criminal penalties would be pursued against OPA employees or the investigator. Later in 2013 McGee filed the Bar grievance that is the basis of his application for relief. In a May 2014 letter Bar Counsel advised McGee that a formal investigation would not be opened, stating in relevant part: You alleged that [the OPA attorney] violated a series of rules dealing with a lawyer’s duties to his client. These alleged violations resulted from allowing [the investigator] to provide investigative services to OPA criminal defense staff and OPA contract attorneys. You alleged that [the investigator] obtained a contract to provide investigative services through a flawed bidding process because [the investigator] misrepresented his investigative experience and training when he responded to a request for proposal. After contracting for services, [the investigator] submitted time sheets that you believe misrepresented time he actually spent in performance of services for OPA. You alleged that his mendacity makes [the investigator] a target for devastating cross examination and impeachment. .... [The attorney] did not create the request for proposal or enter into the OPA contract with [the investigator] in 2006. At most, he inherited a problem that you identified. [He] sought to remedy the problem when he suspended the use of [the investigator’s] services during the investigation. But [he] did not create the problem with which defense counsel may have to grapple. . . . .... A lawyer’s duties to clients encompass the duties to preserve client property, preserve client confidences, avoid conflicts of interest, act with reasonable diligence and -7- 7023 promptness in representing a client, provide competent representation, and act with candor. Issues of [the investigator’s] candor based on his resume and questionable time sheets do not warrant opening an investigation into whether [the OPA attorney] has breached duties to OPA clients. .... . . . I cannot justify opening a grievance for investigation of [this attorney] on the basis of your speculation that . . . OPA could utilize [the investigator’s] services. [The investigator’s] contract as an OPA investigator has been the subject of an administrative hearing, a Department of Administration investigation, a Department of Law investigation and several grievances. [The investigator] no longer has a contract with OPA. If this case were to go to hearing, in my opinion, we would not meet our burden [of] proof in order to show a violation of rules of professional conduct. The disciplinary process is time-consuming, and at the hearing and Disciplinary Board stages it relies on volunteer labor. It has always been our policy to decline prosecution of cases in which we believe that we could not meet our burden of proof at hearing. Under the fairly unique and complicated circumstances of this case, a hearing committee could not reasonably conclude that [this attorney] breached ethical rules of conduct. McGee requested that the Discipline Liaison review the grievance-closing decision, and provided the Discipline Liaison another 11 pages of argument. The Discipline Liaison concurred with the decision to close the matter without a formal investigation. McGee then sought our review of the grievance-closing decision. Although styled as a petition for review under Alaska Appellate Rules 402 and 403, relating to our -8- 7023 review of court orders, review of a grievance-closing decision is more appropriately an original application for relief under Rule 404(a)(1): An original application for relief may be filed with the appellate court or a judge or justice thereof in any matter within its jurisdiction, whenever relief is not available from any other court and cannot be obtained through the process of appeal, petition for review, or petition for hearing. Grant of the application is not a matter of right but of sound discretion sparingly exercised. We will consider McGee’s petition for review as an original application for relief.