Court Opinion

ID: 9737034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:13:35.773802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.079470
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in that portion of the opinion that disposes of the conflict of interest policy issue, but dissent from that portion (p. 837, et seq.) that disposes of the complaints against B.D., L.D. and A.D. on the merits.
Kennedy filed petitions for review of dismissals under Rule 9(1), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). This was premature, for his right to review was to proceed pursuant to Rule 8(d), RLPR. Kennedy did not argue the merits of the complaints in his brief or at oral argument. His reply brief specifically stated he was not seeking review of the dismissal nor waiving his right to it. It appears Kennedy petitioned for review of these three cases primarily to draw the court’s attention to the policy regarding conflicts with which he disagrees.
I would remand these three dismissals to the Board for further proceedings under Rule 8(d) if Kennedy is not satisfied with the disposition of each. This rule specifically provides that further investigation could be directed to be undertaken, and Kennedy on remand should have the opportunity provided by the rule if he chooses.
I recognize that the court has the authority to decide these three dismissals on the merits, but I would prefer a remand as the better practice since the resort to this court was premature and for a limited purpose.