Transparency And Accountability

I believe that every disciplinary system is obligated to file a publicly-available annual report of its activities.

Such a report allows the public to evaluate the quality of self-regulation, which the ABA states “carries with it special responsibilities…to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherence of the parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar.” Model Rules Preamble at comment [12]

The annual report of the Illinois ARDC reveals some interesting statistics on the volume and nature of its caseload

6,073 grievances were docketed against 4,041 different attorneys, representing about 4% of all registered attorneys

57% of all grievances involved issues of poor attorney-client relations: neglect of a client matter (40% of all grievances) or failure to communicate with a client (18% of all grievances)

Top practice areas likely to attract a grievance include criminal law, domestic relations, real estate, and tort

3% of all grievances resulted in the fi ling of formal disciplinary charges

83 formal disciplinary complaints were filed

77% alleged fraudulent or deceptive activity typically alleged in conjunction with other charges such as neglect, improper trust account management or criminal conduct

33.3% of all formal complaints voted in 2013 were the result of attorney reports (aka “Himmel” report).

I’m amazed that one-third of all prosecuted matters originate as a Rule 8.3 report.

I have noted in the past that the District of Columbia does not and never has publicly reported on this type of information (other than occasional anecdotal Bar Counsel columns in the magazine for lawyers).

I have also noted that the Board on Professional Responsibility employs six full-time attorneys.

Surely that is sufficient staffing to generate such a report. (Mike Frisch)