THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, June 21, 1996 TAG: 9606210495
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH LENGTH: 78 lines
Virginia lawyers refused on Thursday to open up their disciplinary process to the public, despite a state audit that found the process too secretive.
In a unanimous vote, with almost no discussion, the State Bar's governing council refused the auditors' recommendation to open the process to allay public mistrust. Lawyers said they are worried that frivolous complaints could become public and ruin an attorney's reputation.
``You're dealing with a person's livelihood. You're dealing with irreparable damage,'' said James A. Roy, a Chesapeake lawyer and member of the State Bar Council, after the vote. ``How do you repair the damage to someone's reputation after a false charge?''
Another council member, Norfolk lawyer Michael A. Glasser, agreed.
``A lawyer's reputation is his most valuable asset. The decision not to open up the district committee proceedings is out of concern that a person's livelihood not be ruined by the airing of unwarranted charges,'' Glasser said after the vote.
Auditors tried to deal with that concern by recommending a plan to balance public accountability with lawyers' privacy.
In December, auditors from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission - an arm of the state legislature - said the bar does a pretty good job of handling ethical complaints against lawyers.
But the auditors also found public suspicion that ``the system is designed to protect lawyers instead of the public.''
``Closed records and proceedings are likely to engender public suspicion, regardless of how fair the system actually is,'' the auditors wrote. ``In order to demonstrate the fairness of the system . . . the disciplinary system needs to be further opened to the public.''
Auditors recommended some changes to improve the system's fairness, and the bar adopted most in February.
But opening the process was so controversial that bar leaders delayed a vote until now.
The bar is a state agency that regulates Virginia lawyers. Its main job is handling complaints of lawyer misconduct. All lawyers must belong, and there are about 20,000 active members.
Until recently, all complaints and hearings were closed. In 1990, the bar opened its most serious disciplinary hearings in Richmond, ones in which lawyers can be suspended or disbarred.
Local hearings remain closed and public complaints are confidential. Local disciplinary committees release findings only if there is a public reprimand. Many cases result in private reprimands or dismissals, and these are not made public.
Auditors suggested opening the process in a narrow way. They proposed that local committee hearings be open to the public after a subcommittee finds, in a closed session, there is ``probable cause'' to believe a lawyer committed a misdeed.
Under this system, ``unfair harm from frivolous complaints should not occur,'' the auditors wrote.
Most lawyers were skeptical.
A bar committee studied the idea and concluded, ``It would be inappropriate to implement such a a dramatic change.'' Opening the process has a ``public relations value,'' the committee found, but that is outweighed by concerns for ``the basic integrity of the system.''
The committee said some lawyers accused of wrongdoing would feel pressured to accept reprimands to avoid public hearings, even if they had valid defenses. Also, public hearings would eliminate the possibility of private reprimands, which serve a ``rehabilitative function,'' the committee found.
In any case, the committee said, open hearings would be a logistical nightmare. The public's interest is already protected, the committee said, by including one non-lawyer in every closed-door committee hearing.
On Thursday, the State Bar Council unanimously accepted the committee's report. Only two members spoke, both against open hearings.
``I don't think (the audit commission) is going to be offended at all because we didn't follow their recommendation,'' Bar President Michael W. Smith said. The bar has already adopted some audit recommendations and rejected others, Smith noted.
Either way, said Virginia Beach lawyer Larry B. Slipow, a council member, ``I didn't see this as a difficult issue at all, and obviously nobody else did.''
KEYWORDS: STATE BAR by CNB