Opinion ID: 889502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the COP violated Best's right to due process.

Text: ¶ 21 The COP ordered Best to appear before it for a private admonition. Private admonitions are provided for in RLDE 13 which states: At any time before initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings, an Adjudicatory Panel, in its discretion, may give a private admonition to the lawyer in the name of the Supreme Court.... Thereupon, the matter shall be deemed terminated except that the [COP] shall maintain a record of such admonition which record may be considered by Adjudicatory Panels and Review Panels in determining discipline to be recommended or imposed in any subsequent disciplinary proceeding involving the lawyer. Private admonitions are not appealable. Best maintains that because she had no opportunity to see or present evidence, to confront or cross-examine witnesses, or to appeal, she was deprived of her right to due process of law. ¶ 22 Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution provides that [n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No absolute standard exists for what constitutes due process. McDermott v. McDonald, 2001 MT 89, ¶ 10, 305 Mont. 166, 24 P.3d 200. The process due in any given case varies according to the factual circumstances of the case, the nature of the interests at stake, and the risk of making an erroneous decision. Sage v. Gamble, 279 Mont. 459, 465, 929 P.2d 822, 825 (1966)[ (1996) ]. We have stated previously in the context of a lawyer disciplinary proceeding that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Goldstein v. Commission on Practice, 2000 MT 8, ¶ 40, 297 Mont. 493, 995 P.2d 923. Engel II, ¶ 23. In addition, due process requires a fair and impartial tribunal, State v. Moore, 268 Mont. 20, 51, 885 P.2d 457, 477 (1994), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gollehon, 274 Mont. 116, 906 P.2d 697 (1995), and a fair hearing, Matter of Goldman, 179 Mont. 526, 551, 588 P.2d 964, 978 (1978). ¶ 23 While the ODC concedes that the specific grounds for the [COP's] decision to give Best a private admonition were not communicated to her, it argues that because this case involves informal discipline, Best's due process rights are minimal. According to the ODC, minimal due process rights exist at this informal stage because lawyers are not in danger of losing their licenses and any discipline imposed by the COP is not public. However, private admonitions are still a form of discipline. In re Potts, 2007 MT 236, ¶ 29, 339 Mont. 186, 171 P.3d 286. And, as Best points out, private admonitions include the potential for the imposition of costs; are maintained as a record by the COP in order to increase discipline in some future proceeding; can cause attorneys to incur substantial costs in hiring legal counsel; are required, in some cases, to be disclosed to malpractice insurance carriers and to other jurisdictions on pro hac vice or admission applications in other states; and can result in reciprocal jurisdiction in another state. ¶ 24 The ODC further argues that Best received all the due process necessary because she was provided a copy of the informal complaint against her and she was given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. What the ODC fails to point out is that the informal complaint did not include any information on the rule that Best was eventually determined to have violated or that the basis for the purported violation was interference with the attorney-client relationship between the Hospital's attorneys and their other client, the MMA. Moreover, Best was never given an opportunity to respond to this new charge. ¶ 25 [D]ue process requires fundamental fairness of procedure which includes notice. Gazette v. State ex rel. Com'n on Practice, 2008 MT 287, ¶ 12, 345 Mont. 385, 190 P.3d 1126 (citing In re B.N.Y., 2003 MT 241, ¶ 21, 317 Mont. 291, 77 P.3d 189; In re A.F.-C., 2001 MT 283, ¶ 50, 307 Mont. 358, 37 P.3d 724). Simply stated, due process requires notice of the alleged misconduct charged. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968). ¶ 26 The lawyer disciplinary board in Ruffalo added a misconduct charge after it had heard the testimony against a lawyer. The United States Supreme Court stated in that case that a lawyer in a disciplinary proceeding is entitled to procedural due process, which includes fair notice of the charge. Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 550, 88 S.Ct. at 1226. The Supreme Court further stated that the charge must be known before the proceedings begin to avoid laying a trap for the accused. Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 551, 88 S.Ct. at 1226. The Supreme Court held in Ruffalo that the absence of fair notice as to the reach of the grievance procedure and the precise nature of the charges deprived the lawyer of procedural due process. Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 552, 88 S.Ct. at 1226. ¶ 27 In the instant case, the COP admits that neither it nor the ODC notified Best of the COP's consideration of Best's letter to the MMA in light of M.R.P.C. 4.2 before scheduling Best's private admonition. The COP claims that [t]hat would have been explained confidentially during the private admonition in an effort to instruct and improve Best's practice of law. The COP further admits that had it privately admonished Best, she would not have had a hearing, the right to confront witnesses, or the right of appeal. ¶ 28 Best was not put on notice that she was charged with a violation of M.R.P.C. 4.2. To now punish her for a violation of that rule without an opportunity to respond to the charge would be a violation of her entitlement to due and fair process. ¶ 29 Accordingly, we hold that the COP violated Best's right to due process.