Iowa considers less transparency in discipline process

July 26, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

When it comes to disciplinary actions involving professionals – doctors, nurses, lawyers – I am all for as much transparency and access to information as possible. This isn’t just due to the line of work I’m in. I believe in educated consumers, and how can one make an informed choice without knowing their attorney or physician made some bad choices in the past.

When looking to purchase a new camera or visit a specific hotel, people read reviews. Why waste your money on a camera that people say is hard to use or not worth the price? It’s the same principle when shopping for a lawyer – before plunking down a retainer or entering into a contract, as the client, you should have the right to know the attorney was suspended for stealing from a client or whatever reason he or she had been disciplined.

In Iowa, the Supreme Court is considering whether to keep the disciplinary process confidential in exchange for cooperation from the offending attorney. If the attorney agrees that their license should be suspended, the matter could be prevented from being disclosed.

Bad idea.

I should be allowed to know whether I’m dealing with an attorney with a former drug problem or a history of not properly representing clients. Many of the attorneys who are disciplined can recover from the gaffe and move on to have incident-free careers. But there are the repeat offenders who cannot.

Making the process less transparent could also give those attorneys considering breaking the rules less pause to do so. If they know there’s likely no way the public will find out what they did, what’s there to keep them in check?

In Indiana, our process seems more transparent than what’s described in a Des Moines Register article. If you search Indiana’s Roll of Attorneys, you can see whether someone has been disciplined or has pending discipline. While you don’t know the topic of the pending matter, at least you’re aware the attorney may get in trouble for some reason.

What are your thoughts on the Iowa proposal?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Transparency Tradeoff
    Bill HodesJuly 26, 2011 4:42 PM
    Iowa is for sure going in the wrong direction.
    But don't forget that in Indiana, as in most states, transparency only applies when a grievance has made it through several layers of in-house screening.
    This is a tough tradeoff, but probably the correct one. If every grievance is immediately made public, a lawyer can take a hit from a bogus complaint and have a very hard time living it down.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • dont go there!
    John SmithJuly 26, 2011 5:36 PM
    It is most certainly a bad trajectory. Transparency is protection not only for the public but also lawyers. Lawyers need to be protected from bullying for political reasons. The less transparency in the process the less protection for the politically incorrect lawyer who may be bullied into resigning. I am thinking of In re Anastaplo and cases like that.

    Lawyers have a right to free speech too and dont just waive it by applying to the bar.

    And that should not just count for the left.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Chaining down the attorneys
    bryanjbrownJuly 29, 2011 4:26 PM
    Looks like the Iowa S.Ct. joins another (much closer to us) in viewing all attorneys as its lackeys. All better be ready, willing and able to deny Christ as King -- as I was not -- they want to be attorneys in the Brave New World the elites are building for us (well, some of us).
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. Interesting that the new laws in criminal code all involve voter fraud

  2. I'm getting divorced and we have prenuptial and judge said it stands even though he made me sign it 2 days before wedding then I be c ame ill and left with nothing butbills

  3. No irony here, John. Conour’s clients are wise to him. Evidently you’ve missed discovery that disclosed Conour was aware he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, actually many cookie jars, but continued to spend any monies he secured on himself and his lifestyle. Your theory is idealistic and assumes Conour has the soul of a good attorney and therefore he would take care of his clients. Conour has no soul. He greedily took awarded settlements from his disabled clients and spent it on his own edacious desires. You are naïve to think if he kept working he would put his fees into a restitution fund. He is who he is and has proven he will use any means to cheat and manipulate those who trust him and the judicial system that is supposed to protect them. Sorry John, you don’t send the fox back into the hen house after he’s caught devouring the hens. Conour can’t be trusted. He has no more honor than that fox.

  4. The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.

  5. the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution

ADVERTISEMENT