Minnesota Board No Longer Has “General Supervisory Authority” Over Bar Prosecutor

Some very interesting changes to the procedures governing lawyer discipline have just been announced by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Notably the amended language strikes the “general supervisory authority” provisions of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board over the bar prosecutor

The Board shall have general supervisory authority over the administration of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and these Rules, and-is responsible for administering these rules, for establishing the policies that govern the lawyer discipline and disability system, and for providing recommendations and guidance to the Director regarding the operations of the Office of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

Italicized language struck.

Further, the State Court Administrator will now evaluate the performance of the OLR Director rather than the board. 

In reaching these conclusions, we have fully considered the concerns expressed in the comments about altering the relationship between the Board and the Director in a way that would leave the Board without adequate information or the Director without adequate guidance on the operations of the Office. We do not expect these concerns will materialize. The amendments to Rule 4, RLPR, are promulgated to clarify the Board’s responsibility for policy governance while guiding the Director with advice and recommendations. The amendments to Rule 5, RLPR, place responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the Office with the Director, guided as necessary by either the Board or State Court Administration. This appropriate division of responsibilities better reflects the longstanding purpose of these rules.

The Minnesota rules further provide that the chief bar prosecutor is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the court.

I have long felt that a key structural error was made in the District of Columbia when that power (which I have personally witnessed being grossly abused) was delegated to the Board on Professional Responsibility. Such an arrangement gives the BPR far too much power and allows the court to take less responsibility for its regulatory system than it should.

I applaud any effort to insure the independence of a bar prosecutor.  (Mike Frisch)