Transparency For Thee But Not For Me

Back when the District of Columbia was considering a rule revision to permit Bar Counsel to negotiate consent dispositions in cases other than consents to disbarment, the bleating mantra of the Bar Insiders on the study committee (personified by former members of the Board on Professional Responsibility and their minions) was that the process needed to be transparent.

The study committee used its purported concern about transparency to craft  a proposed rule that (1) so tied the hands of Bar Counsel, and (2) was so laden with review and process,  to render consent dispositions as unpredictable, time-consuming and burdensome as a full-dress disciplinary proceeding.

They largely succeeded, although the Court of Appeals in its wisdom adopted a far more workable rule than that which the Exalted Poo-Bahs had proposed.

In fairness, the more sensible consent rule adopted by the court was due in large part to the then-BPR , which had registered disagreement with the committee’s proposal.

My praise for that act of courage is linked here.

The BPR’s real-world hostility (see here) toward consent dispositions post-rule change has, in my view, severely impeded the use of this necessary tool.

 Well, if you want some insight into how much the present BPR cares about transparency, go to the Bar’s web page and click on the Scheduled Hearings link.

Here is all you will see:

Hearings are held in Courtroom II of the Historic Courthouse of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals at 430 E Street, N.W., Washington.D.C. 2o001.

Please contact the Executive Attorney at (202) 638-4290 to confirm the date, time, and location of hearings, as schedules are subject to change.

In re Idus Daniels D.N. 400-13, July 14 [2014], 9:30 am, Courtroom II

That’s it.

One notice of a hearing that was scheduled last July. It presumably took place six months ago.

Now, I happen to know that a boatload of Bar Counsel petitions were approved last August. I would have to presume that some of these matters now have scheduled hearings.

If not, the BPR is in violation of its own scheduing rules.

Why isn’t this link regularly updated?

It is the sole source of information about disciplinary proceedings. These matters are open to the public for a reason — to increase awareness and to allow an interested observer some opportunity to see “self-regulation” in action.

There is a hearing that is starting today.

It has never been listed on the web page.

Have other hearings already been held that were never listed?

The BPR’s executive office is notoriously overstaffed, overpaid and underworked.

I would submit that there are sufficient resources to insure that the Bar web page is kept current information in the only place where the public gets notice about public disciplinary proceedings against D.C. attorneys.

It is a disgrace that the public never got any notice of today’s proceeding.

And why have public charges against attorneys never been made available on the bar web page?

My answer: transparency hypocrisy. (Mike Frisch)