Document: 457 U.S. 423 102 S.Ct. 2515 73 L.Ed.2d 116 MIDDLESEX COUNTY ETHICS COMMITTEE, etc., Petitionerv.GARDEN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, et al. No. 81-460. Argued March 31, 1982. Decided June 21, Syllabus Under rules promulgated by the New Jersey Supreme Court pursuant to its authority under State Constitution license and discipline attorneys admitted practice in State, a claim of unethical conduct an attorney is first considered local District Ethics Committee appointed Court. If complaint issued, whose challenged served with has 10 days answer. Upon determination that prima facie case exists, formal hearing held. The charged may have counsel, discovery available, all witnesses are sworn. ultimately dismiss complaint, issue private letter reprimand, or forward presentment statewide Disciplinary Review Board, which also After de novo review, Board required make findings recommendations Court, reviews decisions beyond reprimand permits briefing oral argument for cases involving disbarment suspension more than one year. Respondent Hinds, member Bar, was petitioner, Committee, statement charges violating certain disciplinary rules. Instead filing answer charges, Hinds three respondent organizations lawyers filed suit Federal contending violated their rights Constitution. court dismissed on basis abstention principles Younger v. Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669. Appeals reversed ground proceedings did not provide meaningful opportunity adjudicate constitutional claims, notwithstanding affidavit stating would directly consider Hinds' challenges whether such procedure should be made explicit Held : federal courts abstain from interfering ongoing within jurisdiction Pp. 431-437. (a) policies underlying fully applicable noncriminal judicial when important state interests involved. Where involved, unless law clearly bars interposition claims. pertinent inquiry afford adequate raise 431-432. (b) considers proceedings, beginning as "judicial nature." As such, character warrant federal-court deference. Pp.432-434 (c) extremely interest maintaining assuring professional it licenses. State's present litigation demonstrated fact agency named defendant body initiated against Hinds. importance pending calls into play. 434-435 (d) In light unique relationship between view nature cannot concluded there no "adequate opportunity" his Any doubt this matter laid rest Court's subsequent actions when, prior petition certiorari sua sponte entertained issues raised And reason disturb unchallenged bad faith harassment petitioner's part were "flagrantly patently" unconstitutional. Nor any other extraordinary circumstances been presented indicate appropriate. 435-437. 3rd Cir., 643 F.2d 119 651 154, remanded. Mary Ann Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., petitioner. Morton Stavis, Hoboken, respondents. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion 1 We granted determine considering challenge constitutionality subject 454 962, 500, 72 377 (1981). held need 669 (1971). reverse. 2 * A. 3 responsibility licensing disciplining State. Art. 6, § 2, ¶ 3.1 established authority, moves through three-tier procedure. First, Committees authorized receive complaints relating claimed attorney. Rule 1:20-2(d). At least two minimum eight members must nonattorneys. Complaints assigned report recommendation. 1:20-2(h). decision proceed person who chairs Committee. issued name complainant, describe improper conduct, cite relevant rules, state, if known, same similar answer.2 4 Unless good cause appears referring another member, each referred conducted initial investigation review further investigation, necessary. submits written indication unprofessional demonstrated. then evaluated chairman exists. Absent showing, summarily dismissed. found, before majority whom attorneys. lawyer panel prepare conclusions. full following panel, alternatives. forwarded Board. 1:20-2(o).3 5 state-wide board consists nine members, at five makes review. 1:20-3(d)(3).4 6 All reviewed Briefing available 1:20-4. B 7 Lennox executive director National Conference Black Lawyers time conduct. represented Joanne Chesimard civil proceeding challenging her conditions confinement jail. 1977 went trial murder policeman. counsel record case. However, outset criminal took press conference, making statements critical judge's temperament racial insensitivity. particular, "a travesty," "legalized lynching," kangaroo court." 8 One Middlesex County read news accounts comments brought attention February directed investigation. A released contents press. own motion suspended until conclusion trial. 9 completed investigated probable believe had DR 1-102(A)(5) Rules Code Professional Responsibility.5 That section provides "[a] shall . [e]ngage prejudicial administration justice." 7-107(D), prohibits extrajudicial associated prosecution defense matter.6 accordance Bar procedures, United States respondents' First Amendment rights. addition, respondents facially vague overbroad. based (1971), concluding "[t]he comity federalism dictate so afforded interpret face challenge." App. Pet. Cert. 53a-54a. request reopened allow establish faith, harassment, circumstance constitute exception abstention. Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 85 1116, 14 22 (1965). hearings found evidence justify doctrine complaint. 11 divided Third Circuit bar reasoned unlike usually defer. viewed administrative, "nonadjudicative" analogous preindictment stage proceeding.7 12 On rehearing petitioner attached Clerk stated reconsideration declined alter original decision, facts concerning those existed decision. 154 (1981).8 13 Pending heard arguments adopted rule allowing aggrieved party seek interlocutory proceedings.9 II supra, progeny espouse strong policy interference absent circumstances. frequently reiterated notion "comity" includes proper respect functions, recognition entire country up Union separate governments, continuance belief Government will fare best institutions left free perform functions ways." Id., 44, S.Ct., 750.10 Minimal processes, course, precludes presumption safeguard 15 Moore Sims, 442 415, 423, 99 2371, 2377, 60 994 (1979); Huffman Pursue, Ltd., 420 592, 604-605, 95 1200, 1208, 43 482 (1975). bear close nature, Huffman, supra. Proceedings necessary vindication functioning system state's substantial litigation. Trainor Hernandez, 431 434, 97 1911, 52 486 (1977); Juidice Vail, 430 327, 1211, 51 376 (1977). vital "unless claims." Moore, U.S., 426, 2379. "[T]he claims ." 430, 2380. See Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 93 1689, 36 488 (1973). 16 question threefold: first, do constitutionally prescribed proceeding; second, implicate interests; third, challenges. 17 Jersey, common most States,11 recognizes obligation regulate persons law. expresses provision vesting fix standards, admission bar, enforce among bar. N.J. Const., 3. recognized act arm performing function receiving investigating holding hearings. 1:20-2; re Logan, 70 222, 358 A.2d 787 (1976). clear Grievance "is effect Toft Ketchum, 18 280, 284, 113 671, 674, cert. denied, 350 887 (1955). "From very ethics grievance committee."12 N.J., A.2d, 674. It nature."13 remaining inquiries implicated plaintiff challenge. C traditionally exercised extensive control over n. 11, ultimate objective "the protection public, purification prevention re-occurrence." Baron, 25 445, 449, 136 873, 875 (1957). judiciary well public dependent upon professionally ethical thus significant high standards engaged practice. Stein, 228, 237, 62 801, 805 (1949), quoting Cahill, 66 N.J.L. 527, 50 (1901). involved justice special importance. Finally, 19 So long can determined showing some inappropriate, abstain. D 20 contends Yet failed respond even attempt proceedings. Jersey's procedure, constantly called points nothing existing lawyers, refused they enforcing guarantees. Abstention theory " '[t]he accused set rely courts, though involves validity statute, plainly course protection.' 45, 750, Fenner Boykin, 271 240, 244, 46 492, 493, L.Ed. 927 (1926). 21 difficult conclude claims.14 Whatever doubt, any, about ability Prior therefore abundant proceedings.15 23 There ignore development. Hicks Miranda, 422 332, 2281, 45 223 (1975), we "where begun plaintiffs after but substance merits taken place court, Harris apply force." 349, 2291. An situation here; call remain force. Thus far sole No occurred terminated application principles. trivialize take account forum court. 350, 2292.16 24 Respondents 'flagrantly patently' Younger, 53, 754, Watson Buck, 313 387, 402, 61 967, 1416 (1941). 50a-52a. see these findings, appropriate.17 III Because "opportunity timely decided competent tribunal involved," 577, 1697, because exceptional contrary, Accordingly, judgment reversed, remanded consistent opinion. 26 Reversed BRENNAN, concurring judgment. For reasons MARSHALL, I join agree show particular restraint intruding where proceeding. traditional primary establishing quasi-criminal Ruffalo, 390 544, 551, 88 1222, 1226, 117 (1968), deference courts. Gipson 558 701, 703-704 (CA3 1977); Erdmann Stevens, 458 1205, 1209-1210 (CA2 1972). continue adhere my view, however, general inapplicable 613, 1212, (1975) (BRENNAN, dissenting). 28 BLACKMUN, STEVENS join, 29 much language discussing regulating appropriate simple might imply. acknowledges, challenges, inapplicable. Ante, 432. Here, unclear whether, lower addressed issue, Furthermore, accurately prosecutorial rather nature. 30 events below only far, 436-437. rendered denied rehearing, certified itself. 62a. Now, given result, abstention, time. only, Article 3, provides: "The governing and, law, admitted." detailed explanation Committees, 1:20-2. noted below, amended 1981, now questions Committees. forth 1:20-2(j) "All withheld consideration final Interlocutory relief sought R. 1:20-4(d)(i)." Each appoints serve Secretary. Secretary maintains records transmits copies documents Division Services. 1:20-2(c). Subsequent initiation case, 1:20-3(e) provide: "Constitutional preserved, without action, merits. Responsibility Judicial Conduct American Association, amendment supplementation, standard judges Jersey. 1:14. 7-107 deals "Trial Publicity" states: "(D) During selection jury matter, firm participate extra-judicial he expects disseminated means communication relates trial, parties, matters reasonably likely interfere fair designed elicit facts, legal arguments, indicated presence nonlawyers. does adjudicated. distinguished 701 1977), being disciplined already state-court action initiated. Judge Adams, concurring, emphasized general, exercise supervisory powers. Weis, dissenting, argued issues, series segments independent bodies whole. Weis prevent assure possibility moot dispute still remains. again justiciable controversy remained recommended moot. 1:20-4(d) "(i) Review. file leave appeal papers conform 2:8-1. Leave irreparable injury. granted, may, discretion supplemented briefs argument. "(ii) Final properly preserved recommendation provisions 1:19-8." Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 688 govern issuance declaratory judgments statute M. Shoaf, Enforcement Systems Structural Survey (ABA Center 1980). allocation 2.1 ABA Standards Lawyer Discipline Disability (Proposed Draft 1978), states "[u]ltimate exclusive structure disability disposition individual inherent power highest state." rationale connected bound right define naturally logically belongs department." commentary 2.1. neither nor sui generis. 1.2 1978). (1977), labeled civil, quasi-criminal, nature," salient unduly legitimate activities state. 335-336, 1217. instant arose 1978 change. Nothing change, altered remains role association committees analogized master. Anonymous Association City York, 515 427 (CA2), 863, 96 122, 92 essentially previously agreed "incursions [New Jersey] peculiarly disruptive notions comity." 704. This distinguishable Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 462, 94 1209, 1217, 39 505 (1974), vehicle vindicating plaintiff. Gerstein Pugh, 103, 108, n.9, 854, 860, 54 legality pretrial detention could prosecution. 337, 1218. writ expressly permit adjudication issues. 1:20-4(d)(i). 9, Even 1:20-2(j). except letters reprimand. 1:20-2(j), requires made. Indeed, indicates desired give swift resolution parties remand.

Category: 8