After having researched several states disciplinary review systems (for judges and attorneys), I have learned that the several consistencies throughout demonstrate where these entities' true motives and goals lie.
Although all publish that they are established and work to cull out and discipline errant legal professionals in order so that the public may maintain trust in the profession, several of their methods seriously contradict this position.
For example, let's discuss the mandated confidentiality requirement imposed on complainants...The reason(s) given as justification for this requirement are specious. The possibility of false accusations being submitted as a method of harassing or defaming a licensed professional may exist, but such false accusations are highly unlikely, for several reasons. First, one's successful defense against such accusations, when provided to the public, provide the public with the entire "story." Second, the false complainant can be sued under many legal theories for simply filing the false complaint. Third, and most importantly, there are always "evidentiary" thresholds that need to be met before an investigation is begun. When a complainant can bring forth enough evidence to meet that threshold, then the specious and harassing claims are functionally weeded out, and no further protection is needed.
Indeed, no further protection is logical, if the board's purpose is to maintain the public's trust inthe profession. A thick comprehensive "pre-shield" between the public, established facts, and the truth suggests that the entity really dose NOT want the public to know what is very important for the public to know. Unless, of course, what these boards mean when they tout trust as their goal is that they really mean that they want to create the appearance of trustworthiness, and not actual trustworthiness.
The very real impact of mandated confidentiality from the complainant, from my experience and research, is that it allows a fabric of misdeeds and failing professional standards. It allows lying, stealing, and corrupt judges and lawyers to continue their behavior and hide behind the very entity that professes to cull out and discipline such failures. It is not a matter of an esoteric conflict of ethics. It is straight up lies, theft, and use of the legal system to carry out maliciousness and malfeasance.
If you have a real-life story that demonstrates the failures described above, I would live to post it. Remember, most of these boards are quasi government entities--especially where they report to a court or "discipline" public officials like judges. these boards serve us, the citizenry. Let's make it so.
No comments:
Post a Comment