CHAPTER 7 - 7-1 INTRODUCTION

• Jurisdiction: United States

7-1 Introduction

All of the domestic jurisdictions in the United States maintain a system of bar discipline wherein complaints against lawyers are investigated and adjudicated. While there is a national model set of disciplinary rules¹ virtually every jurisdiction has its own practice. In most states, lawyer discipline is adjudicated before either an appellate court or their supreme court. While all states have robust administrative, investigatory and prosecutorial regimes, the imposition of discipline is usually done by either a single justice or a panel of the highest court in the state.²

Connecticut departs from the national norm in that bar discipline, up to but not including suspensions and disbarments, is imposed by the Statewide Grievance Com-mittee.³ The Grievance Committee is an "arm of the court" in this regard.⁴ Disciplinary matters involving suspension or disbarment or otherwise beyond the authority of the Grievance Committee are within the jurisdiction of the superior court and are the subject of a prosecution called a presentment.⁵

The process of bar discipline in Connecticut is extremely complex. In addition to the procedures found in the rules, there are protocols, procedures and understandings, knowledge of which will enable the practitioner to more effectively operate in the forum. A simplified flowchart of the process follows on page 198.

7-1:1 Sources of Authority

Practice before grievance panels, the Statewide Grievance Committee, and courts is regulated by the Practice Book and the rules of the Statewide Grievance Committee.⁶ It should be noted that while the general statutes address the process of bar discipline,⁷ the Practice Book departs markedly from the statutory regime. It is the position of the Judicial Branch that under a separation of powers analysis, matters of bar regulation are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch and the Practice Book governs.⁸

Simplified Flowchart of the Grievance Process

This position raises the same issues as in the Courchesne⁹ matter and its progeny concerning whether the Judicial Branch may make its own rules or whether this is an area of shared jurisdiction with the legislature. As lawyer discipline matters are heard exclusively in Judicial Branch proceedings, deference to the Judicial Branch on which rules to apply seems to be the better course.

--------

Notes:

^[1] See, generally, ABA Model Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement.

^[2] See, for example, ABA Model Rules for Lawyer...