Judges debate New York's approach to attorney discipline
1/23/2013COMMENTS (0)
By Jessica Dye
NEW YORK, Jan 22 (Reuters) - Judges at a panel on Tuesday defended New York state's department-by-department approach to discipline of attorneys, saying they receive fair hearings regardless of the venue.
New York leaves attorney discipline up to each of the four intermediate appellate departments, unlike many states that have a unified system.
During a discussion at the New York State Bar Association's annual meeting, Luis Gonzalez, presiding justice of the Appellate Division, First Department, said that while uniformity was a "laudable objective," justice could still be served using disparate disciplinary rules.
Some differences in the department's disciplinary rules are minor or procedural, panelists said. In the First Department, for instance, referees designated to investigate certain cases are allowed to make recommendations to the judges about the type of sanction to impose. In the Second Department they generally cannot.
Other differences are more significant.
Only two appellate divisions -- the Third and Fourth --allow oral arguments in disciplinary cases. And all the appellate departments except the First have a diversion program for attorneys whose minor disciplinary infractions stem from alcohol or drug abuse.
Some New York attorneys have questioned whether the state bar would benefit from a less balkanized system. In a 2005 report, the New York County Lawyers Association's Committee on Lawyer Discipline suggested the disciplinary rules should be more unified.
But panel members said on Tuesday the existing rules are tailored to each department's respective needs and culture.
In the Second Department, which handles more cases than any other, allowing oral arguments in every disciplinary matter could overwhelm the court, said Justice Mark Dillon of the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Karen Peters, presiding justice of the Third Department, said a more unified approach to defining attorney sanctions could benefit the courts.
Currently, definitions for disciplinary terms like "admonishment" or "letter of caution" vary between the departments, Peters said.
Panelists also discussed the possibility of introducing a new diversionary program for lawyers with mental health issues, similar to the ones aimed at lawyers with alcohol and drug abuse. No such program currently exists in any of the departments, panelists said.
Anthony Gigliotti, chief counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Judicial Districts in the Appellate Division's Fourth Department, said his court was seeing more attorneys with disciplinary problems that may stem in part from mental health issues. Dillon and Gonzalez said they would be open to discussing whether to implement a mental-health diversion program in their respective departments.
Roy Simon, a professor at Hofstra University School of Law, said having a unified approach to discipline could prove difficult.
Dillon said that without a "catalyst," it was unlikely that the departments would move independently to unify their procedures.
"I suspect that 30 years from now, the rules will be closer to uniformity, but not total uniformity," Gonzalez said.
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook
NEW YORK, Jan 22 (Reuters) - Judges at a panel on Tuesday defended New York state's department-by-department approach to discipline of attorneys, saying they receive fair hearings regardless of the venue.
New York leaves attorney discipline up to each of the four intermediate appellate departments, unlike many states that have a unified system.
During a discussion at the New York State Bar Association's annual meeting, Luis Gonzalez, presiding justice of the Appellate Division, First Department, said that while uniformity was a "laudable objective," justice could still be served using disparate disciplinary rules.
Some differences in the department's disciplinary rules are minor or procedural, panelists said. In the First Department, for instance, referees designated to investigate certain cases are allowed to make recommendations to the judges about the type of sanction to impose. In the Second Department they generally cannot.
Other differences are more significant.
Only two appellate divisions -- the Third and Fourth --allow oral arguments in disciplinary cases. And all the appellate departments except the First have a diversion program for attorneys whose minor disciplinary infractions stem from alcohol or drug abuse.
Some New York attorneys have questioned whether the state bar would benefit from a less balkanized system. In a 2005 report, the New York County Lawyers Association's Committee on Lawyer Discipline suggested the disciplinary rules should be more unified.
But panel members said on Tuesday the existing rules are tailored to each department's respective needs and culture.
In the Second Department, which handles more cases than any other, allowing oral arguments in every disciplinary matter could overwhelm the court, said Justice Mark Dillon of the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Karen Peters, presiding justice of the Third Department, said a more unified approach to defining attorney sanctions could benefit the courts.
Currently, definitions for disciplinary terms like "admonishment" or "letter of caution" vary between the departments, Peters said.
Panelists also discussed the possibility of introducing a new diversionary program for lawyers with mental health issues, similar to the ones aimed at lawyers with alcohol and drug abuse. No such program currently exists in any of the departments, panelists said.
Anthony Gigliotti, chief counsel for the Fourth and Fifth Judicial Districts in the Appellate Division's Fourth Department, said his court was seeing more attorneys with disciplinary problems that may stem in part from mental health issues. Dillon and Gonzalez said they would be open to discussing whether to implement a mental-health diversion program in their respective departments.
Roy Simon, a professor at Hofstra University School of Law, said having a unified approach to discipline could prove difficult.
Dillon said that without a "catalyst," it was unlikely that the departments would move independently to unify their procedures.
"I suspect that 30 years from now, the rules will be closer to uniformity, but not total uniformity," Gonzalez said.
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New_York/News/2013/01_-_January/Judges_debate_New_York_s_approach_to_attorney_discipline/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.