Court Opinion

ID: 9585311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:58:59.553182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:26.643251
License: Public Domain

Grice, Justice,
dissenting. From the study I have made, I conclude that no basis for injunction exists because the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to challenge the impartiality of a member of the grievance tribunal at the probable cause hearing provided for by Rule 4-204 of the State Bar of Georgia (219 Ga. 873, 906). This rule requires that the grievance tribunal “shall cause a preliminary investigation to be made to determine if probable cause exists for the lodging of a formal complaint” and provides that at such hearing “The member complained against shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard with respect to the complaint, either in person or by affidavit.”
The absence in these rules of tlie right to challenge, in that investigative stage, the partiality -of a member of the grievance tribunal does not amount to an inadequate remedy at law.
This stage is similar in principle to that of a grand jury considering whether to return an indictment. In that situation there is no opportunity to challenge members of the grand jury upon the ground óf partiality.
The opportunity to challenge for partiality is provided before trial. Rule 4-206 states that after service of the formal complaint, but before trial, a pre-trial meeting shall be held and that the grievance tribunal “shall pass upon all questions concerning the qualifications and impartiality of any member of the Tri*85bunal and the sufficiency of the complaint, subject to review by the State Disciplinary Board and to judicial review as hereinafter provided.”
In my view the foregoing rule provides an adequate remedy at law and adequately protects the rights of the attorney, as-well as those of the profession and of the public.
It should be added that the intent of these rules is that disciplinary action be taken insofar as practicable by the bar itself, that the proceedings be handled as expeditiously as possible and that there be no undue publicity as to those involved.
In my opinion the engrafting of a suit for injunction-^which must be determined first — upon a disciplinary proceeding is not in line with that intent. It is an innovation in administrative law in that it amounts to investigating those' whose duty it is to make the investigation. I have found no basis for it, either in the statutes, in court decisions, or in logic.
Instead of reversing, I would affirm the judgment;