Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Open Minds Can Lead To Positive Change

The North Dakota Supreme Court has asked for comments  and scheduled a hearing on substantial proposed revisions to its disciplinary system . 

In June 2014, following a review of the North Dakota lawyer discipline by a consultation team of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Professional Discipline, a report of the team was provided to the Supreme Court. In July 2014, the report was referred it to the Joint Committee on Attorney Standards for review and recommendation. Following several meetings, on March 1, 2016, the Joint Committee on Attorney Standards submitted a report and proposed amendments to North Dakota Rules for Lawyer Discipline 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6and 6.7. were filed. The proposed amendments are available athttp://www.ndcourts.gov/Court/Notices/Notices.htm. Individuals who do not have internet access may contact the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court to obtain a copy of the proposal. The Court considered the matter

The report and its recommendations follow a study conducted in response to a request for input from the American Bar Association Lawyer Disciplinary System Support Team. The court’s committee included persons with particular knowledge of the North Dakota system.

Among the recommendations made (not reflected in the proposed rule changes) are better facilities and training for disciplinary counsel, better web page access to information (North Dakota is in great need of  this improvement) and less insular choices for appointment to the Disciplinary Board.

I applaud the court for its willingness to consider outside input in rethinking the fairness and efficiency of the regulation of its Bar. Change only comes when courts are open to such input. It is my understanding that the ABA conducts these studies only when requested to do so by a state’s highest court.

Because everything about the D.C. system is flawless and above improvement, I expect the court will never seek such an independent study. (Mike Frisch)