Citation Numbers: 82 Op. Att'y Gen. 23
Judges: J. JOESPH CURRAN, JR.
Filed Date: 1/6/1997
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Dear Delegate Vallario:
You have requested our opinion on two questions about the rulemaking authority of Maryland Court of Appeals, as applied to the discipline of attorneys:
1. May the Court of Appeals by rule, and without legislative authority, allow for the issuance of subpoenas by Bar Counsel and the Chair of the Inquiry Panel?
2. May the Court of Appeals by rule, and without legislative authority, grant absolute immunity to the members of the Attorney Grievance Commission, the Inquiry Committee, the Review Board, Bar Counsel, and their employees and designees?
Our opinion is that the Court of Appeals may do so.
Your inquiry stems from two aspects of a proposed revision of the Attorney Discipline Rules: subpoena authority and immunity. Regarding subpoenas, current Maryland Rule BV4 and proposed Rule 16-712 provide that, during a preliminary investigation and upon application by the Bar Counsel, the Chair of the Attorney Grievance Commission may authorize Bar Counsel to issue a subpoena to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of designated documents or other tangible things. Current Rule BV6 d (3)(c) provides that in a proceeding before the Inquiry Panel, the Panel, the Bar Counsel, or the attorney who is the subject of the complaint may cause the issuance of a subpoena by a court clerk under Rule 2-510. Proposed Rule 16-718 provides that either the Bar Counsel or the attorney may request the Panel Chair to cause a subpoena to be issued by a clerk of a circuit court pursuant to Rule 2-510; the subpoena would compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents for Inquiry Panel proceedings.
Regarding immunity, the current rules are silent. The proposed rules grant immunity to those persons involved with the disciplinary process. Proposed Rule 16-743 provides that members of the Attorney Grievance Commission, the Inquiry Committee, the Review Board, Bar Counsel, and their employees and designees (including monitors, auditors, and conservators) are immune from suit and civil liability for conduct or communications in the course of their official duties.
A. Rulemaking Authority Generally
Under the Constitution, the Court of Appeals has express rulemaking power. Article IV, § 18(a) provides as follows:
The Court of Appeals from time to time shall adopt rules and regulations concerning the practice and procedure in and the administration of the appellate courts and in the other courts of this State, which shall have the force of law until rescinded, changed or modified by the Court of Appeals or otherwise by law. The power of courts other than the Court of Appeals to make rules of practice and procedure, or administrative rules, shall be subject to the rules and regulations adopted by the Court of Appeals or otherwise by law.
"The basis for the grant of rule-making power is the recognition that in order to provide for the orderly administration of justice, reasonable and specific rules of procedure are necessary." Kohr v. State,
B. Disciplinary Authority
The judicial power to provide for the orderly administration of justice has been understood to include the power to discipline attorneys. See Attorney General v. Waldron,
The statements of this and other courts announcing the obligation of the judicial branch of government to monitor and manage its own house are not hollow proclamations of power, for the placement of this responsibility with the judiciary represents a recognition of the special, and to a degree, unique relationship that has evolved over the years between the legal profession and the tribunals of justice it serves. In this country it is a well known maxim that attorneys function as officers of the courts, and, as such, are a necessary and important adjunct to the administration of justice. . . . A court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.
The Court of Appeals, in exercising its authority to regulate the practice of law and the discipline of attorneys, has the power to conduct a general investigation into the conduct and practices of attorneys whenever it has cause to believe that professional misconduct might have occurred. See 7 Am. Jur. 2d Attorneys atLaw § 30. See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris,
Pursuant to its inherent authority to regulate the practice of law and its express constitutional authority to regulate "practice . . . in the . . . courts . . .," the Court of Appeals by rule established the Attorney Grievance Commission. The Commission is the prosecutorial arm of the Court, given the responsibility to supervise and administer the discipline of attorneys licensed to practice in this State. See AttorneyGrievance Comm'n v. McBurney,
The Commission comprises attorneys and public representatives, charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the standards of professional conduct adopted by the Court of Appeals for the discipline of the bar. Md. Rule BV2. The Commission has the power to recommend to the Court procedural and administrative rules relating to the disciplinary system affecting attorneys; appoint and supervise Bar Counsel; authorize the Bar Counsel to employ attorneys, investigators, and clerical personnel; and appoint members of the Inquiry Committee and the Review Board. Md. Rule BV3 b.
C. Disciplinary Procedures
All complaints are initially investigated by the Bar Counsel. Rule BV6 a (1). If the Bar Counsel finds the complaint to be without merit or the attorney has engaged in conduct that does not warrant discipline, Bar Counsel may dismiss the complaint subject to approval by the chairman or vice chairman of the Inquiry Committee. If Bar Counsel concludes that the attorney is guilty of misconduct for which a reprimand should be administered, if an inquiry panel proceeding has been dispensed with, and if there is approval by the chairman or vice chairman of the Inquiry Committee, Bar Counsel may administer a reprimand. Rule BV6 a (3).
Unless a complaint is dismissed or an Inquiry Panel proceeding has been dispensed with, the Bar Counsel is to refer the complaint to the Inquiry Panel and give notice to the attorney of the nature of the complaint made. Rule BV6 a (4). The Inquiry Panel may dismiss the complaint without a hearing. Otherwise, the Panel conducts a hearing and can recommend that the complaint be dismissed, the attorney be reprimanded, or formal charges be filed. Rule BV6 e (4)(a). If the panel decides that a reprimand or formal charges are warranted, it states the basis in writing and files its recommendation with the Bar Counsel. If the recommendation is not unanimous, the dissenting members file a minority report. If the Inquiry Panel votes unanimously to dismiss the complaint, it must submit written reasons with the Bar Counsel and the case is dismissed. Rule BV6 e (4)(c). A less than unanimous vote for dismissal requires consideration by the Review Board upon submission of the majority and minority reports. Rule BV6 e (4)(d). The Review Board may approve, reject, or modify the recommendation; remand for further proceedings; or dismiss the complaint. Rule BV7 b. If the Review Board issues a reprimand, the attorney may request that formal charges be filed. Rule BV7 c. In response to that request, the Board must either instruct the Bar Counsel to file charges or withdraw the reprimand and dismiss the complaint. Id. Charges against an attorney are filed on behalf of the Commission in the Court of Appeals. Rule BV9 b.
Regulatory and enforcement authority generally carries with it all of the modes of inquiry and investigation traditionally employed or useful to execute the authority granted. Dow ChemicalCo. v. United States,
Article
Maryland has long recognized that statements made by counsel and by parties in the course of "judicial proceedings" are privileged so long as such statements are material and pertinent to the questions involved, irrespective of the motive with which they are made. Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden,
These policy considerations apply fully to attorney disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding before the Commission has been characterized as a "judicial proceeding." Braverman v. BarAssociation of Baltimore,
Similarly, the Court may include in the rule another well-established basis for absolute immunity: prosecutorial immunity. In Imbler v. Pachtman,
Bar Counsel's responsibility for bringing disciplinary proceedings and exercising independent judgment in determining when to bring such proceedings is not very different from the responsibility of a criminal or administrative prosecutor. Bar Counsel's independence, like that of a prosecutor, would be compromised were Bar Counsel to fear that a mistake could result in a civil suit. Bar Counsel must be able to perform the task of protecting the public by determining an attorney's fitness to practice law without the worry of intimidation and harassment from a dissatisfied attorney. Further, the welfare of the legal system would be jeopardized if Bar Counsel had to weigh each decision in terms of potential personal liability. The Court may reflect these policy judgments in a rule.
Finally, the Court of Appeals could reasonably conclude that the policy considerations underlying absolute immunity for prosecutorial activities likewise require immunity for investigatory activities prior to a prosecution. See Jarvis v.Drake,
Because the Court of Appeals has the inherent power to discipline attorneys, it would be lawful for the Court, through its rulemaking power, to grant what it deems to be sufficient immunity to those persons who assist the Court in carrying out its role to discipline attorneys.6
In summary, it is our opinion that:
1. The Court of Appeals by rule may allow for the issuance of subpoenas by Bar Counsel and the Chair of the Inquiry Panel.
2. The Court of Appeals by rule may grant absolute immunity by rule to the members of the Attorney Grievance Commission, the Inquiry Committee, the Review Board, Bar Counsel and their employees and designees.
Very truly yours,
J. Joseph Curran, Jr. Attorney General
Kimberly Smith Ward Assistant Attorney General
_____________________ Jack Schwartz Chief Counsel Opinions and Advice
*Page 34
United States v. Giordano , 94 S. Ct. 1820 ( 1974 )
Kohr v. State , 40 Md. App. 92 ( 1978 )
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Howard , 282 Md. 515 ( 1978 )
Adams v. Peck , 288 Md. 1 ( 1980 )
Braverman v. Bar Assn. of Balto. , 209 Md. 328 ( 1956 )
Attorney General of Maryland v. Waldron , 289 Md. 683 ( 1981 )
Kerpelman v. Bricker , 23 Md. App. 628 ( 1974 )
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of the United States ... , 696 F.2d 678 ( 1983 )
Unnamed Attorney v. Attorney Grievance Commission , 313 Md. 357 ( 1988 )
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harris , 310 Md. 197 ( 1987 )
ATTORNEY GRIEV. COM'N OF MARYLAND v. Hamby , 322 Md. 606 ( 1991 )
Attorney Grievance Commission v. McBurney , 282 Md. 116 ( 1978 )
Lukas v. Bar Ass'n of Montgomery County, Maryland, Inc. , 35 Md. App. 442 ( 1977 )
Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Lee , 1980 Me. LEXIS 695 ( 1980 )
Wong v. Schorr , 51 Haw. 608 ( 1970 )
Idaho State Bar Ass'n v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission , 102 Idaho 672 ( 1981 )
Banach v. State Commission on Human Relations , 277 Md. 502 ( 1976 )
County Council v. Investors Funding Corp. , 270 Md. 403 ( 1973 )
Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden , 330 Md. 632 ( 1993 )