Opinion ID: 1609069
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Encouraging the Filing of Complaints

Text: Having addressed the cooperation of participants, we now turn to the other interest asserted in this section, the interest in encouraging the filing of complaints. As with the prior interest, the confidentiality rule suppresses more speech than is necessary to achieve this end. Specifically, we note that the imposition of mandatory confidentiality upon the complainant is not necessary to serve this interest. As we explained above in regards to witnesses, if a grievant desires anonymity, they are free not to disclose the fact that they have filed a complaint. As with witnesses, the imposition of mandatory confidentiality upon complainants likely serves to deter rather than encourage the filing of some complaints. See R.M. v. Sup.Ct., 883 A.2d at 380 ([N]ot all grievants desire anonymity, and indeed, some grievants may be deterred from filing ethics complaints because they are forbidden from publicizing that fact.); Doe v. Sup.Ct., 734 F.Supp. at 985. (noting that it is likely that potential complainants would be dissuaded from initiating disciplinary proceedings when doing so would potentially subject them to a perpetual bar from speaking out about the complaint). By suppressing the speech of those complainants who would reject anonymity, the rule is obviously not narrowly tailored to encourage a grievant to file a complaint. We also note that the confidentiality rule is simply not designed or tailored to address the concern raised by Mr. Plattsmier, that some grievants will not file a complaint unless their identity can be hidden from the respondent attorney. [70] We first note that La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 16(A)(1) indicates that the respondent attorney may waive the confidentiality of the proceeding. [71] Second, in the interest of due process, our current disciplinary rules require that before the ODC recommends a disposition other than dismissal or stay, the respondent attorney must be notified in writing of the substance of the complaint and be afforded an opportunity to be heard. La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 11(B)(2). In many cases, the substance of the complaint will reveal the identity of the complainant. Furthermore, in keeping with the spirit of Rule XIX, § 11(B)(2), and to serve the practical needs of the investigation which they are required to conduct, the ODC has adopted the common practice of simply forwarding each complaint, as submitted, directly to the respondent attorney. See Rule XIX, § 4(B)(1) and (2) (describing the ODC's duty to screen and investigate all information coming to the attention of the disciplinary agency). The standard complaint forms used by the ODC, when completed, include the name of the grievant, and thus the anonymity of the grievant is lifted when the respondent attorney reviews the complaint. This state of affairs was discussed during the hearing before the commissioner. We note the following interchange: [Counsel for Mr. Warner]: . . . Isn't it [the ODC's] practice to take the complaint, with the complainant's name on it, and just forward it directly to the lawyer? [Mr. Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel]: Yes, sir. [Counsel for Mr. Warner]: So the lawyer, even a big, powerful lawyer, from the very beginning of the proceedings knows who the complainant is? [Mr. Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel]: In almost every instance, that's true . . .    [Counsel for Mr. Warner]: So the confidentiality rule doesn't shield the complainant's identity or information from the respondent? [Mr. Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel]: That's true. Louisiana is not unique in this regard. Two courts have gone so far as to say that `[t]he lawyer who may be the target of the complaint surely will learn about the grievance and the identity of the complainant, whether the procedures are deemed confidential or not.' See R.M. v. Sup.Ct., 883 A.2d at 380 (quoting Doe v. Sup.Ct. 734 F.Supp. at 985). [72]