Opinion ID: 1388651
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Caption and Signature

Text: The caption of the complaint read: Hearing Committee J6 Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. Respondent objected, claiming that the Hearing Committee is not part of the supreme court. Respondent is partially and technically correct in that the Committee is a committee of the Arizona State Bar. See rule 48(e), Ariz.Sup.Ct.Rules. The Commission, on the other hand, is an arm of the Supreme Court. Rule 47(a), Ariz.Sup.Ct. Rules. (There shall be a Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona.) Respondent also complained of Bar counsel's signature because Bar counsel signed the complaint under his firm's name rather than for the Bar. As a result, a prehearing conference was held. In testimony before the Committee, respondent said: MR. WADE: I believe that Mr. Auther has been appointed as Bar counsel, but I do not believe his firm has been appointed as Bar counsel. MR. HENDRICKS: So your quarrel then is not with him serving as Bar counsel, but with him having added the name of his firm above his signature on the Complaint? MR. WADE: I believe in lieu of that it should have been the State Bar of Arizona by Mr. Auther, as the signature on the Complaint. I believe the rules specifically call for it. The Bar was granted leave to amend its complaint to cure the technical deficiencies in the signature line and caption. We believe that this cured any error. In any event, it played no part in the determination of this matter. Respondent contends, however: [I]n spite of the fact that bar counsel was ordered by the hearing committee to amend the pleadings in the instant action because of improper captions, the bar persists in the use of these improper captions. The Bar has resumed using a caption which falsely states that these proceedings are before the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona. The rules expressly call for a caption reciting Before the State Bar of Arizona, Hearing Committee No. ___. Rule 55(f) R.Sup.Ct. Respondent believes that the bar employs these misleading captions for the same reason that it erroneously claims that the Commission is a non-state bar entity: the bar knows that because it is both prosecutor and judge, and because the Commission has no genuine independence from the bar, all disciplinary proceedings are inherently prejudicial and implicitly unfair to respondents. We are not sure what all this does for respondent except to gain time while his motions are considered. If there is, or ever was, a problem in the caption, the rules specifically provide for corrections of such technical mistakes. See rule 54(i), 17A Ariz.Sup.Ct.Rules (Absent error resulting in a miscarriage of justice, [n]o findings or recommendations made in any proceeding shall be invalidated because of an error in pleading, or in procedure, or upon any other ground....). We fail to see how an error in the complaint caption resulted in a miscarriage of justice. We find no error or prejudice.