Iowa considers less transparency in discipline process

July 26, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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
    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.
  • dont go there!
    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.
  • Chaining down the attorneys
    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).

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.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT