2015 Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems (S.O.L.D.) · Liaison, ABA Solo, ... Responses correspond...

2015 Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems (S.O.L.D.)

Prepared by the Standing Committee on Professional Discipline of the American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility

Paula J. Frederick, Chair Atlanta, GA

Maret Vessella Phoenix, AZ

Michael P. Downey St. Louis, MO

Lish Whitson Seattle, WA

Lea Gutierrez Chicago, IL

J. Timothy Eaton Liaison, ABA Board of Governors

Chicago, IL

John S. Hicks Nashville, TN

Nancy L. Cohen Special Advisor

Denver, CO

Amanda Jones Chicago, IL

James Ham Liaison, Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers

South Pasadena, CA

James A. Kawachika Honolulu, HI

Paul J. Burgoyne Liaison, National Organization of Bar Counsel

Philadelphia, PA

Frederic S. Ury Fairfield, CT

Betty Smith Adams Liaison, ABA Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division

Glenelg, MD

Center for Professional Responsibility Staff

Tracy L. Kepler, Director Ellyn S. Rosen, Deputy Director & Regulation Counsel Theresa M. Gronkiewicz, Deputy Regulation Counsel

Kimley Grant, Paralegal

Introduction to the 2015 S.O.L.D. Results

The ABA Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems (S.O.L.D.) questionnaire for 2015 was sent to 56 lawyer disciplinary agencies. Connecticut, Nevada, and South Dakota did not provide responses by the publication date. At the request of the State Bar of California, data for California can be derived from the referenced public sources. Medians and averages are shown where potentially meaningful. In most instances, averages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

The 2015 Survey results consist of ten charts arranged alphabetically by jurisdiction. Responses correspond to the questions as numbered on the questionnaire appended to the end of the document. Footnotes at the end of each chart include explanatory information provided by some jurisdictions. Where exact figures were not available, estimated figures were provided. This is also noted in the footnotes. The abbreviation "N/A" means that the data is not available or applicable.

Questions regarding the S.O.L.D. questionnaire should be addressed via email to Ellyn S. Rosen, Regulation Counsel, ABA Center for Professional Responsibility at [email protected].

2015 S.O.L.D. Results

The information contained in the 2015 S.O.L.D. is not intended to constitute a comprehensive overview of each jurisdiction's lawyer disciplinary system. Where possible, footnotes have been included to address variations in the manner in which jurisdictions function

© American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility April 2017 1 | P a g e

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINECENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zZMLDYTCmJQ%3d&tabid=224&mid=1534

mailto:[email protected]

and maintain statistics. Click here for contact information on lawyer disciplinary agencies. Additional resources for research and statistics about lawyers and the legal profession are readily available at Legal Profession Statistics.

Chart I Lawyer Population and Agency Caseload Volume, Parts A & B

Chart II Diversion

Chart III Sanctions Imposed, Parts A & B

Chart IV Reinstatement / Readmission Statistics

Chart V Caseload Statistics

Chart VI Case Processing Times

Chart VII Budget and Sources of Funding

Chart VIII Annual Registration Dues & Fees in State Disciplinary Systems

Chart IX Staffing of Disciplinary Counsel Offices, Parts A & B

Chart X Staffing of Adjudicative Offices, Parts A - C



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/directory_disciplinary_agencies_online.authcheckdam.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/resources_for_lawyers/profession_statistics.html

Jurisdiction 1. # of Lawyers

with Active License

2. # of Complaints Received by

Disciplinary Agency

2a. Central Intake or Consumer

Assistance Program

2b. # of Complaints Handled Separately by Central Intake /

Consumer Assistance Program

Alabama 13,761 1,344 Yes 0 Alaska 3,102 181 No N/A

ArizonaN 18,422 3,127 Yes N/A Arkansas 9,783 657 No 0 Colorado 25,991 3,505 Yes N/A Delaware 4,221 174 N/A N/A

District of Columbia 75,626 929 No N/A Florida 85,356 7,558 Yes N/A Georgia 37,561 3,219 Yes 11,259 Hawai'i 4,834 292 No N/A Idaho 4,971 337 N/A N/A Illinois 82,495 5,648 Yes N/A Indiana 18,495 1,715 N/A N/A IowaN 9,500 917 No N/A

Kansas 11,141 801 No N/A Kentucky 18,140 1,168 Yes N/A Louisiana 21,981 2,933 Yes 0

Maine 5,302 220 Yes N/A Maryland 38,938 2,144 No N/A

Massachusetts 59,217 734 Yes 3,976 Michigan 41,608 2,014 No N/A

Minnesota 28,858 1,210 No N/A


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)

CHART I – PART ALAWYER POPULATION AND AGENCY CASELOAD VOLUME

1


with Active License


Disciplinary Agency


Assistance Program



Mississippi 9,116 468 Yes 0 Missouri 26,136 1,995 Yes N/A

MontanaN 3,877 274 No N/A Nebraska 6,900 329 No N/A

New Hampshire 5,500 23,235 No N/A New Jersey 75,526 3,600 No N/A New Mexico 6,900 644 No N/A

New York: 1st Department 92,998 3,793 No N/A New York: 2nd Department/ 2nd, 11th & 13th Districts 18,346 1,611 No N/A

New York: 2nd Department/ 9th District 15,734 957 No N/A

New York: 2nd Department/ 10th District 22,728 1,530 Yes N/A

New York: 3rd Department 65,000 2,098 N/A N/A New York: 4th Department/

5th, 7th & 8th Districts 14,588 1,660 No N/A North Carolina 27,938 1,331 Yes 7,087 North Dakota 2,997 189 No N/A

Ohio 44,157 4,122 N/A N/A Oklahoma 18,108 1,310 No N/A OregonN 15,178 2,043 Yes N/A




2


with Active License


Disciplinary Agency


Assistance Program



Pennsylvania 64,750 4,018 N/A N/A Rhode Island 5,576 357 No N/A

South Carolina 12,313 1,542 N/A N/A Tennessee 21,980 1,204 Yes 3,484

Texas 98,671 7,760 Yes N/A Utah 9,148 823 Yes 529

Vermont 2,700 208 Yes 827 Virginia 31,247 3,346 Yes N/A

Washington 31,126 2,242 Yes N/A West Virginia 6,669 551 No N/A

Wisconsin 25,169 1,979 Yes N/A Wyoming 2,879 129 Yes N/A

TOTAL* 1,403,258 116,175 27,162

AVERAGE* 26,986 2,234 2,716

MEDIAN* 18,243 1,338 678

*=estimated




3

CHART I – PART A NOTES

N/A = Data not available or applicable Connecticut, Nevada, and South Dakota had not provided data by the publication date.

California Data for California can be accessed at: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zZMLDYTCmJQ%3d&tabid=224&mid=1534

Arizona Q2: Includes matters handled by Central Intake. Iowa Q1: Estimated.

Montana Q2a: Office of Disciplinary Counsel handles all intake.

Oregon Q2: Includes 62 trust account overdraft notifications received directly from financial institutions, and 44 complaints initiated directly by Disciplinary Counsel's Office (DCO).




4

Jurisdiction

3. # of Complaints

Pending From Prior

Years

4. # of Complaints Summarily Dismissed / Screened

Out

5. # of Complaints Investigated

6. # of Complaints Closed or Dismissed

After Investigation

7. # of Lawyers Charged After Probable Cause

Determination

Alabama 719 969 305 32 46 Alaska 56 170 11 8 6 Arizona 743 2,533 1,073 340 91

ArkansasN 710 N/A 595 595 57 ColoradoN 516 0 348 120 55 Delaware 32 N/A 181 128 18

District of Columbia 393 576 746 418 51 Florida 2,807 2,945 7,420 4,317 295

GeorgiaN 453 161 2,253 1,998 116 Hawai'i 174 65 362 48 15 Idaho 164 0 501 321 31 Illinois 1,919 1,343 7,567 5,561 109 Indiana 20 1,285 430 377 84

Iowa 175 329 564 169 14 KansasN N/A 597 204 136 26 Kentucky 234 569 1,081 236 31 Louisiana 2,074 1,596 3,431 1,041 120

Maine 70 24 196 165 26 MarylandN N/A 75 2,000 1,600 109

Massachusetts 591 3 1,325 559 95 Michigan 724 1,819 663 293 129

© American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility April 2017

1 | P a g e


2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART I – PART B

LAWYER POPULATION AND AGENCY CASELOAD VOLUME

5

Jurisdiction

3. # of Complaints

Pending From Prior

Years


Out



After Investigation


Determination

Minnesota 650 610 1,332 335 48 Mississippi 195 269 25 29 23 Missouri 384 1,042 1,213 587 41 Montana 84 95 204 194 12 Nebraska 15 122 207 171 36

New Hampshire 193 219 209 30 21 New Jersey 1,100 2,500 2,454 N/A 234 New Mexico 26 N/A 670 602 29

New York: 1st Department 1,012 2,110 4805 2,110 186 New York: 2nd Department/

2nd, 11th & 13th Districts 1,115 966 1,395 189 30 New York: 2nd Department/

9th District 1,059 424 532 448 53 New York: 2nd Department/

10th District 923 702 1,391 478 42 New York: 3rd Department 970 660 3,068 158 1 New York: 4th Department/

5th, 7th & 8th Districts 649 957 1,266 511 23 North CarolinaN 748 523 804 666 72 North Dakota 81 10 141 109 7

Ohio 749 1,830 970 375 77


2 | P a g e




6

Jurisdiction

3. # of Complaints

Pending From Prior

Years


Out



After Investigation


Determination

Oklahoma 144 N/A 432 70 25 OregonN 169 460 1,029 678 67

Pennsylvania 1,201 954 4,265 2,186 265 Rhode Island N/A 53 304 378 6

South Carolina 1,019 413 1,257 962 12 Tennessee 404 346 658 491 132

Texas N/A 5,054 2,383 1,520 515 Utah 442 203 1,062 678 19

Vermont 53 96 156 106 12 Virginia 485 2,066 1,130 509 35

WashingtonN 824 1,335 1,726 725 76 West Virginia 449 221 1,000 366 16

Wisconsin 744 1,661 456 198 42 Wyoming 37 57 95 60 2

TOTAL* 28,498 40,856 67,895 34,381 3,683

AVERAGE* 594 851 1,306 674 71

MEDIAN* 469 546 775 375 42

*= estimated


3 | P a g e




7

CHART I – PART B NOTES


Arkansas Q3: Estimated. Colorado Q5: Number of investigations processed by the trial division. Georgia Q3: 348 complaints with OGC and 105 complaints with Investigative Panel. Georgia Q4: Estimated. Kansas Q3: Data is not maintained. Kansas Q5: Does not include complaints from previous years that were still pending, because data is not maintained.

Maryland

Q7: Disciplinary counsel generally initially brings charges to a recommendatory panel that does not adjudicate facts, but can recommend the filing of charges to the MD Attorney Grievance Commission, which directs disciplinary counsel to file charges in the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.

North Carolina Q4: All grievances are investigated to the degree necessary to determine if the grievance had merit.

Oregon Q3: Number reflects only those complaints pending as of January 1, 2015 in the Disciplinary Counsel’s Office and not the Client Assistance Office.

Oregon Q4: Number of dismissals/resolutions by the Client Assistance Office within 6 days or less.

Oregon

Q5: Number reflects only those complaints pending as of January 1, 2015 in the Disciplinary Counsel’s Office (169) not the Client Assistance Office, plus total files opened by Disciplinary Counsel’s Office during 2015 (302), plus 764 investigated by Client Assistance Office, less the number referred from the Client Assistance Office to the Disciplinary Counsel’s Office in 2015 (206).

Oregon Q7: Includes 28 formal charges and 39 letters of admonition. Washington Q4: Includes past summary dismissals that were inadvertently omitted.


4 | P a g e




8

Jurisdiction 8. Alternatives to Discipline /

Diversion Program

8a. Data Maintained

for Alternatives

to Discipline / Diversion Program (Y or N)

9. # of Complaints Referred to Alternatives Discipline / Diversion Program

9a. # of Respondents Successfully Completed Program

9b. # of Respondents Did Not Successfully

Complete Program

9c. # of Respondents

Still Participating

in the Program

Alabama No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Alaska No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Arizona Yes Yes 86 19 0 62

Arkansas Yes Yes 2 1 N/A 1 ColoradoN Yes Yes 83 54 0 29 Delaware Yes Yes 0 N/A N/A N/A

District of Columbia No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Florida Yes Yes 176 N/A N/A N/A Georgia No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hawai'i Yes Yes 2 1 0 1 Idaho No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Illinois Yes Yes 3 2 2 4 Indiana Yes Yes 12 N/A N/A N/A

Iowa Yes Yes 3 1 0 2 Kansas Yes Yes 34 11 3 20

Kentucky Yes Yes 518 0 0 0 Louisiana Yes Yes 26 24 0 2 MaineN Yes Yes 2 N/A N/A 2

Maryland Yes Yes 15 21 4 31



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART II

DIVERSION

9


Diversion Program

8a. Data Maintained

for Alternatives





Complete Program


Still Participating

in the Program

Massachusetts Yes Yes 24 21 2 1 Michigan Yes Yes 27 0 6 21

Minnesota No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Mississippi No No N/A N/A N/A N/A

Missouri Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A Montana No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Nebraska No No N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Hampshire Yes Yes 2 1 0 3 New Jersey Yes Yes 60 65 3 25 New Mexico No No N/A N/A N/A N/A

New York: 1st Department No No N/A N/A N/A N/A New York: 2nd Department/

2nd, 11th & 13th Districts Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A New York: 2nd Department/

9th District Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A New York: 2nd Department/

10th District Yes No 0 N/A N/A N/A New York: 3rd Department Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A New York: 4th Department/

5th, 7th & 8th Districts Yes Yes 1 N/A N/A 1 © American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility April 2017 2 | P a g e



DIVERSION

10


Diversion Program

8a. Data Maintained

for Alternatives





Complete Program


Still Participating

in the Program

North CarolinaN Yes Yes 8 0 0 8 North Dakota Yes Yes 6 N/A N/A N/A

Ohio No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Oklahoma Yes Yes 44 19 1 24 OregonN Yes Yes 30 13 3 14

Pennsylvania No No N/A N/A N/A N/A Rhode Island Yes Yes 1 1 N/A N/A

South Carolina Yes Yes 0 N/A N/A N/A Tennessee Yes Yes 20 20 0 0

Texas Yes Yes 47 47 0 0 Utah Yes Yes 2 N/A N/A 2

Vermont Yes Yes 21 17 1 3 Virginia No No N/A N/A N/A N/A

Washington Yes Yes 28 3 0 25 West Virginia No No N/A N/A N/A N/A

Wisconsin Yes Yes 158 150 1 7 Wyoming Yes Yes 1 0 0 1




DIVERSION

11

CHART II NOTES


Colorado Q9: 35 Intake, 47 Investigative, 1 Trial. Colorado Q9a: 23 Intake, 30 Investigative, 1 Trial. Colorado Q9c: 12 Intake, 17 Investigative.

Maine Q9a: Pending.

North Carolina Q8: Successful completion of the diversion program may but DOES NOT necessarily result in dismissal of the grievance.

Oregon Q9a: The terms of diversion are generally one or two years. No one referred to a diversion program in 2015 would have completed it within that same calendar year.




DIVERSION

12

Jurisdiction

10. # of Lawyers Receiving

Private / Non-Public Disciplinary Sanctions

10a. # of Lawyers Receiving

Private / Non-Public Sanctions: Admonition

10b. # of Lawyers Receiving

Private / Non-Public Sanctions: Private Reprimand

10c. # of Lawyers Receiving

Private / Non-Public Sanctions: Letter of Warning / Caution

Alabama 19 0 19 25 Alaska 1 1 0 0 Arizona 0 0 0 0

Arkansas 17 N/A N/A 17 Colorado 9 9 N/A 173 Delaware 9 5 4 6

District of ColumbiaN N/A N/A N/A N/A FloridaN N/A N/A N/A N/A Georgia 62 21 13 28 Hawai'i 14 11 3 7 Idaho 17 4 13 N/A

IllinoisN N/A N/A N/A N/A Indiana 4 1 3 15 IowaN 33 31 N/A 2

KansasN 0 0 0 51 Kentucky 79 38 8 33 Louisiana 26 26 0 0 MaineN 0 0 0 17

MarylandN 0 N/A N/A 82 Massachusetts 26 26 N/A N/A

Michigan N/A 163 N/A N/A Minnesota 124 112 N/A N/A

MississippiN 47 12 4 31



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART III – PART A

SANCTIONS IMPOSED

13

Jurisdiction









MissouriN 0 83 0 164 MontanaN 0 N/A N/A N/A Nebraska 4 N/A 4 N/A

New HampshireN N/A N/A N/A N/A New JerseyN N/A N/A N/A N/A New MexicoN 13 13 N/A 35

New York: 1st Department 3 99 3 5 New York: 2nd Department/

2nd, 11th & 13th Districts 147 44 1 102

New York: 2nd Department/ 9th District

62 62 0 106

New York: 2nd Department/ 10th District

121 45 0 76

New York: 3rd Department 87 33 10 44

New York: 4th Department/ 5th, 7th & 8th DistrictsN

30 30 N/A 112

North Carolina 116 39 N/A 77 North Dakota 22 14 0 N/A

Ohio N/A N/A N/A N/A Oklahoma 23 0 23 N/A OregonN N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pennsylvania 280 58 11 211




SANCTIONS IMPOSED

14

Jurisdiction









Rhode Island 16 11 5 39 South CarolinaN 153 2 N/A 151

Tennessee 73 51 22 N/A Texas 67 N/A 67 N/A Utah 3 3 N/A 4

Vermont 12 12 N/A N/A Virginia 60 29 17 N/A

Washington 18 N/A N/A N/A West VirginiaN N/A N/A N/A N/A

Wisconsin 26 N/A 26 N/A Wyoming 1 0 1 0

TOTAL* 1,824 1,088 257 1,578 AVERAGE* 43 30 9 54 MEDIAN* 21 18 4 31

*=estimated




SANCTIONS IMPOSED

15

CHART III – PART A NOTES

The following jurisdictions responded that they do not have private/non-public discipline: District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and West Virginia.



Iowa Q10c: Caution not considered a sanction. Kansas Q10c: A "Letter of Caution" are issued but does not constitute discipline.

Maine Q10c: Referred to as Dismissals With Warnings (DWW). These are confidential. DWWs are sanction and are not discipline.

Maryland Q10c: Not a sanction. Mississippi Q10c: Dismissed/SAB.

Missouri Q10a: Admonitions are public.

New Mexico Q10c: Letters of Caution are not considered a disciplinary sanction. However, 35 attorneys received non-disciplinary cautionary instructions in 2015.

New York: 4th Dept./ 5th, 7th, & 8th Districts Q10c: A "Letter of Caution" is non-disciplinary.

South Carolina Q10-Q10a & Q10c: Estimated.




SANCTIONS IMPOSED

16

Jurisdiction 11. # of Lawyers Publicly

Disciplined

11a. Public Sanctions: # of Lawyers

Involuntarily Disbarred

11b. Public Sanctions: # of Lawyers

Disbarred on Consent

11c. Public Sanctions: # of Lawyers Suspended (Excluding

Interim Suspensions)

11d. Public Sanctions: # of Lawyers Interimly

Suspended (for Risk of

Harm or Criminal

Conviction)

11e. Public Sanctions: # of Lawyers

Admonished / Reprimanded /

Censured

11f. Public Sanctions: # of Lawyers Placed on Probation

11g. Public Sanctions: # of Lawyers Ordered to

Pay Restitution

11h. Public Sanctions: # of Lawyers Ordered to Pay Costs

AlabamaN 49 5 9 7 7 14 1 10 80 Alaska 5 0 0 3 1 2 0 1 2

ArizonaN 144 7 5 39 3 25 63 11 144 Arkansas 25 0 6 3 2 17 1 1 15 Colorado 82 6 8 34 9 6 19 15 82 Delaware 11 1 1 1 1 7 0 0 3 District of Columbia 70 27 11 32 45 12 5 3 N/A

Florida 351 34 7 188 6 115 61 16 306 Georgia 75 16 12 25 13 9 0 0 N/A Hawai'i 12 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 12 Idaho 17 0 2 9 0 0 6 0 0 Illinois 128 19 14 57 8 16 23 10 53 Indiana 39 3 10 20 2 N/A 8 N/A 39 IowaN 33 1 0 10 0 22 0 0 10

Kansas 46 2 7 14 5 14 5 3 19 Kentucky 39 4 4 31 1 3 4 14 49 Louisiana 111 7 1 29 11 8 26 0 111

Maine 23 0 0 3 0 17 0 0 0



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART III – PART B

SANCTIONS IMPOSED

17


Disciplined









Harm or Criminal

Conviction)



Censured



Pay Restitution


Maryland 111 20 24 33 2 32 0 4 41 Massachusetts 83 15 10 43 7 16 1 N/A N/A

Michigan 84 11 2 46 26 25 16 29 84 Minnesota 65 6 0 47 1 8 51 0 65 Mississippi 15 1 1 5 0 8 0 0 15 MissouriN 49 17 2 11 5 4 12 N/A N/A MontanaN 13 3 1 3 1 6 1 4 9 Nebraska 13 5 2 4 0 2 4 0 13

New Hampshire 21 3 5 2 0 9 2 N/A 21 New JerseyN 116 6 18 26 33 66 N/A N/A 116 New Mexico 30 5 1 14 0 10 10 5 18

New York: 1st Department 59 20 10 13 11 6 N/A N/A N/A

New York: 2nd Department/

2nd, 11th & 13th DistrictsN 49 16 5 17 6 5 N/A N/A N/A

New York: 2nd Department/ 9th District 13 4 1 3 3 0 N/A N/A N/A




SANCTIONS IMPOSED

18


Disciplined









Harm or Criminal

Conviction)



Censured



Pay Restitution


New York: 2nd Department/ 10th District 37 11 6 11 4 5 N/A 0 0

New York: 3rd Department 29 10 1 13 0 5 N/A 0 N/A

New York: 4th Department/ 5th, 7th & 8th

Districts 56 6 1 37 7 5 N/A 1 0 North Carolina 93 6 16 14 2 37 19 N/A 92 North Dakota 26 8 N/A 7 1 6 0 0 N/A

Ohio 95 3 20 24 31 17 11 0 50 Oklahoma 16 3 5 6 7 2 0 0 16 OregonN 115 2 3 30 15 53 12 0 9

Pennsylvania 116 17 20 38 21 14 6 0 127 Rhode Island 10 0 3 6 0 0 1 0 0

South Carolina 22 3 6 6 10 5 N/A 6 15 Tennessee 99 10 1 33 17 39 3 20 52

Texas 214 22 27 135 N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A Utah 21 1 2 7 N/A 10 1 N/A N/A




SANCTIONS IMPOSED

19


Disciplined









Harm or Criminal

Conviction)



Censured



Pay Restitution


Vermont 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Virginia 70 7 11 22 N/A 30 N/A N/A 188

Washington 74 5 14 27 9 28 29 14 53 West Virginia 13 4 1 5 1 2 1 2 9

Wisconsin 52 N 1 26 9 16 N/A 4 28 Wyoming 6 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 6

TOTAL* 3,146 382 321 1,223 345 798 403 173 1,952

AVERAGE* 61 7 6 24 7 16 10 4 48

MEDIAN* 48 5 4 14 3 9 3 1 19

*=estimated




SANCTIONS IMPOSED

20

CHART III – PART B NOTES



Alabama Q11: 6 Transferred to Disability Inactive.

Arizona Q11e: 57 Public Admonitions. Iowa Q11 & Q11h: Estimated.

Missouri Q11: Total does not include admonitions.

Montana Q11: Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline so the total for Q11a-Q11h will be more than the figure in Q11.

New Jersey Q11: Excludes interim suspensions. New Jersey Q11e: 19 Public Admonishments 28 Reprimands 19 Censures.

New York: 2nd Department/ 2nd, 11th & 13th Districts

Q11c: 125 attorneys were suspended as a result of a mass suspension of lawyers delinquent vis-ã-vis attorney registration.

Oregon Q11 & Q11d: Includes administrative suspensions for non-cooperation with Disciplinary Counsel’s Office investigation.

Oregon Q11e: Includes 14 reprimands and 39 letters of admonition.




SANCTIONS IMPOSED

21

Jurisdiction

12. # of Petitions, Motions or

Requests for Reinstatement /

Readmission Filed: 2015

13a. # Granted After Disbarment

13b. # Granted After Suspension

13c. # Granted After Transfer to

Disability Inactive Status

14. # Denied / Dismissed

Alabama 11 2 4 0 5 Alaska 1 0 1 0 0 Arizona 10 0 7 0 4

Arkansas 11 0 11 0 0 Colorado 9 1 2 0 4 Delaware 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

District of Columbia 4 2 2 0 1 Florida 17 1 16 0 5 Georgia 7 1 6 N/A 0 Hawai'i 1 0 0 0 0 Idaho 2 0 1 0 0 Illinois 8 0 2 0 6 Indiana 7 0 N/A N/A 2 IowaN 5 0 5 0 0

Kansas 3 1 2 0 0 Kentucky 1 0 1 0 1 Louisiana 7 1 10 1 4

Maine 3 0 0 0 1 Maryland 13 2 3 0 8

Massachusetts 21 1 16 1 3 Michigan 15 1 7 0 5



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.) CHART IV

REINSTATEMENT / READMISSION

22

Jurisdiction









MinnesotaN 17 0 13 0 3 Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 MissouriN 106 1 27 52 11 Montana 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Nebraska 6 0 3 0 2

New Hampshire 1 0 1 0 1 New JerseyN 21 N/A 21 0 0 New Mexico 7 0 5 1 1

New York: 1st Department 20 N/A 16 N/A 1 New York: 2nd Department/

2nd, 11th & 13th Districts 10 3 2 0 5 New York: 2nd Department/

9th District 8 2 5 0 1 New York: 2nd Department/

10th District 6 4 1 0 2 New York: 3rd Department 50 0 50 N/A 0 New York: 4th Department/

5th, 7th & 8th Districts 11 0 8 0 3 North Carolina 15 1 12 0 5 North Dakota 0 8 7 0 0

Ohio 8 N/A 6 N/A 1





23

Jurisdiction









Oklahoma 9 0 3 0 3 OregonN 203 0 13 0 0

Pennsylvania 112 2 12 0 11 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 5 0 4 0 0 Tennessee 18 0 19 1 1

Texas 0 0 0 0 0 Utah 4 0 4 1 2

Vermont 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia 0 0 N/A 0 0

Washington 12 0 10 0 0 West Virginia 1 0 1 0 0

Wisconsin 36 N/A 16 N/A 5 Wyoming 2 1 0 0 0

TOTAL* 845 35 355 57 107 AVERAGE* 16 1 7 1 2 MEDIAN* 7 0 5 0 1

*=estimated





24

CHART IV NOTES


California Relevant data can be viewed at: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zZMLDYTCmJQ%3d&tabid=224&mid=1534.

Iowa Q12 & Q13b: Estimated. Minnesota Q14: 1 reinstated after resignation. Missouri Q13c: Reinstated after transfer to inactive status, NOT disability inactive status.

New Jersey and Oregon Q13a: Disbarment is permanent.





25

Jurisdiction 15. Average Caseload Per

Lawyer

16. Average # Cases Carried

Over from Prior Years

17. Average # New Cases Assigned

Per Lawyer 18. Average # Cases Closed Per Lawyer

Alabama 364 148 93 31 Arizona 298 57 241 235

ArkansasN 175 177 164 160 ColoradoN 584 58 N/A 584 58 58 Delaware 60 11 50 43

District of Columbia 50 26 24 28 Florida 260 94 166 190 Georgia 38 20 24 25 Hawai'i 42 40 42 15 Idaho 234 67 167 133

IllinoisN 140 140 800 700 Iowa 106 33 73 32

Kansas 30 5 25 20 Kentucky 167 53 114 139 Louisiana 311 190 121 94 Maryland N/A 55 60 72

Massachusetts 88 39 49 50 Michigan 83 65 70 60

MinnesotaN 38 38 36 29 Mississippi 35 10 25 25 Montana 126 32 94 102 Nebraska 30 8 60 40



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART V

CASELOAD VOLUME

26


Lawyer





New Hampshire 42 25 47 11 New Jersey 65 39 26 27 New Mexico 220 8 212 207

New York: 1st Department 96 48 48 33 New York: 2nd Department/

9th District 62 77 59 133 New York: 2nd Department/

10th District 126 84 139 157 New York: 3rd Department 511 161 349 211 New York: 4th Department/

5th, 7th & 8th Districts 180 92 87 132 North Carolina 144 52 92 89

Ohio 136 50 80 86 Oklahoma 72 24 48 35 OregonN 36 39 22 43

Pennsylvania 217 50 167 171 Rhode Island 88 N/A 88 94

South Carolina 125 113 171 186 Tennessee 165 130 123 235

Texas 35 N/A N/A N/A Utah 217 77 140 121

Vermont 104 36 104 71




CASELOAD VOLUME

27


Lawyer





Virginia 50 13 56 65 Washington 92 33 56 63

West Virginia 200 89 110 133 Wisconsin 160 44 116 135 Wyoming 129 43 129 120

AVERAGE* 146 61 125 117 MEDIAN* 125 48 88 89

*=estimated




CASELOAD VOLUME

28

CHART V NOTES

Not all jurisdictions maintain this data and therefore the following jurisdictions are not included in this chart: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, New York: 2nd Dept./ 2nd, 11th & 13th Judicial Districts, and North Dakota.


Arkansas Q15: Estimated. Colorado Q15-17: Intake Caseload 584, Trial Caseload 58. Colorado Q18: Intake Caseload 440, Trial Caseload 45.

Illinois Q14-15: Monthly and Q17-18: Yearly. Minnesota Q15 - Q18: Estimated.

Oregon Q15 & Q17: Estimated.




CASELOAD VOLUME

29

Jurisdiction

19. Average Time from Receipt of

Complaint to Summary Dismissal


Complaint to Closure/Dismissal

After Investigation


Complaint to Filing of Formal

Charges

22a. Average Time from Filing of

Charges to Imposition of

Private Sanction

22b. Average Time from Filing

of Charges to Imposition of

Public Sanction

23. Average Time to Process Petition/Motion

for Reinstatement/ Readmission from Filing

to Final Disposition

Alabama 15 Days 120 Days 160 Days 260 Days 260 Days 80 Days Alaska 83 Days 571 Days N/A 391 Days 951 Days 211 Days Arizona 27 Days 200 Days 300 Days N/A 91 Days 217 Days

Colorado 52 Days 238 Days 259 Days 203 Days 251 Days 148 Days Georgia 7 Days 55 Days 210 Days 240 Days 400 Days 365-400 Days Hawai'i 14 Days* 180 Days 240 Days N/A N/A N/A IdahoN N/A 6 Months* 8 Months* N/A 8 Months* 2 Months*

Illinois Fewer than 10

Days Fewer than 90

Days N/A N/A N/A N/A Iowa 3 Days* 154 Days 273 Days 198 Days 305 Days 180 Days*

Kansas 14 Days 120 Days 275 Days N/A 272 Days 304 Days Kentucky 4 Days 30 Days 106 Days 507 Days 527 Days 183 Days Louisiana 29 Days 222 Days 345 Days 28 Days 424 Days 304 Days MarylandN 7-10 Days 120 Days 1 Year N/A 15 Months 60 Days

Massachusetts 4.3 Days 148 Days 506 Days 37 Days 177 Days 202 Days Michigan 3-6 Weeks 6 Months-1 Year 6 Months-1 Year N/A 239 Days 285 Days

Minnesota 14 Days 300 Days* 395 Days* 0 395 Days 240 Days Mississippi 90 Days 90 Days 180 Days 90 Days 90 Days 270 Days

* = Estimated



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART VI

CASE PROCESSING TIMES

30

Jurisdiction





After Investigation



Charges



Private Sanction



Public Sanction




Montana 5 Days 120 Days 120 Days N/A 90 Days 90 Days Montana 5 Days 120 Days 120 Days N/A 90 Days 90 Days Nebraska 2 Days 60 Days 240 Days 320 Days 365 Days 240 Days

New Hampshire 109 Days 576 Days 791 Days N/A 180 Days 18 Days

New JerseyN

Less Than 45 Days Per

Court Rule N/A N/A N/A 297 Days N/A

New Mexico Varies 2-3

Days* Varies 21-90 Days* Varies 90-120

Days* Varies 90-180

Days* Varies 180-365

Days* Varies 180-365 Days* New York: 1st Department 90 Days 180 Days 2 Years 1-1/2 Years 3 Years 6 Months

New York: 2nd Department/9th District 1 Week 9-12 Months Varies 9-12 Months Varies Varies

New York: 2nd Department/10th District 1-2 Weeks 4-6 Months 6 Months-1 Year Varies Varies Varies

New York: 3rd Department 30 120 1 Year N/A 6 Months 90 Days

* = Estimated





31

Jurisdiction





After Investigation



Charges



Private Sanction



Public Sanction




New York: 4th Departments/

5th, 7th & 8th Districts 14 Days 90 Days 9 Months N/A 6-9 Months 90 Days North CarolinaN 78 Days 257 Days 460 Days N/A 194 Days 102 Days North Dakota 70 Days 168 Days 311 Days N/A 821 Days 174 Days

Ohio 45 Days 142 Days 183 Days N/A N/A N/A Oklahoma 45 Days 180 Days 270 Days N/A 9-12 Months 9-12 Months OregonN 36 Days 114 Days 419 Days N/A 590 Days 2 Weeks to 2 Years

Pennsylvania 7 Days 210 Days N/A 474 Days 693 Days 104 Days Rhode Island 2 Days 3-4 Months 3-4 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 3 Months

South Carolina 15 Days* 90 Day* Varies Varies Varies 180 Days* Tennessee 1-2 Days 142 Days 242 Days N/A 407 Days 103 Days

Texas 30 Days 172 Days 245 Days N/A N/A N/A Virginia 17 Days 211 Days 436 Days 350 Days 412 Days N/A

Washington 9 Days* 58 Days* 369 Days* N/A 394 Days* N/A West Virginia 3 Days 200+ Days 6 Months-1 Year N/A 1 Year-3 Months

Wisconsin 50 Days N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wyoming 5 Days 65 Days 150 Days N/A 270 Days 30 Days

* = Estimated © American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility April 2017 3 | P a g e




32

CHART VI NOTES

Not all jurisdictions maintain this data and therefore the following jurisdictions are not included in this chart: Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, New York: 2nd Dept./2nd, 11th & 13th Judicial Districts, Utah, and Vermont. N/A = Data not available or applicable Connecticut, Nevada, and South Dakota had not provided data by the publication date.

Idaho Q19: No summary dismissal. Investigate all. Maryland Q22b: Consent dispositions are not included.

New Jersey Q22b: Number represents the time taken from filing of the complaint (charges) until the hearing has been completed. North Carolina Q19: All grievances are investigated to the degree necessary to determine if the grievance had merit.

Oregon Q22a: No private sanctions in Oregon.

Oregon Q23: Dramatic differences depending on the type of application and whether it is contested. Uncontested informal reinstatement generally completed within 60 days.





33

Jurisdiction Number of

Lawyers with Active License

24. Total Lawyer

Discipline System Budget

($)

25. Total Discipline Counsel or Comparable

Prosecutorial Office Budget ($)

26. Total Discipline Board or

Comparable Administrative /

Adjudicative Budget ($)

27. Source of Funding

27e. Other Sources of

Funding

Alabama 13,761 $1,733,100 Included N/A 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

Alaska 3,102 $930,185 Included N/A 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

Arizona 18,422 $3,740,673 $3,161,046 $579,623 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

Arkansas 9,783 $955,976 $936,226 $19,750

100% Supreme Court Assessed

Fees 0%

ColoradoN 25,991 $6,477,180 $5,738,971 $738,209


Fees 0%

Delaware 4,221 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

District of Columbia 75,626 $9,249,701 N/A N/A 100% Bar

Association Dues 0% Florida 85,356 $17,452,241 Included N/A N/A N/A

Georgia 37,561 $3,577,000 $3,512,000 $80,000 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART VII

BUDGET & SOURCES OF FUNDING

34



24. Total Lawyer


($)








Funding

Hawai'i 4,834 $1,833,142 Included Included 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

Idaho 4,971 $760,657 $702,650 $58,007 100% Association

Dues 0%

Illinois 82,495 $16,764,081 $14,701,599 2,062,482

97.6% Supreme Court Assessed

Fees

0.5 % Cost Recovered; 0.6% Interest Earned; 1.3% Expense

Reimbursement from Client

Protection Program

Indiana 18,495 $1,700,000 Included N/A 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

Iowa 9,500 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $200,000


Fees 0%

Kansas 11,141 $1,892,000 Included N/A


Fees 0%

Kentucky 18,140 $1,654,500 Included N/A 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%





35



24. Total Lawyer


($)








Funding

Louisiana 21,981 $5,422,815 $3,192,132 $2,230,683


Fees 0%

Maine 5,302 $1,053,000 $960,000 $948,000 90% Supreme Court Assessed Fees N/A

10% CLE Court Approval Fees, Interest Income, Certificates of

Good Standing, and Administrative Fees from LFCP

and MAP

Maryland 38,938 $4,439,328 $4,214,004 N/A 95% Supreme Court

Assessed Fees

5% Bank Interest & Interest on

Recover Costs

Massachusetts 59,217 $17,492,868 $7,520,338 $4,496,963


Fees 0%

Michigan 41,608 $4,710,366 $3,671,196 $1,039,170 95% Supreme Court

Assessed Fees 5%





36



24. Total Lawyer


($)








Funding

Minnesota 28,858 $3,654,000 Included N/A 95% Supreme Court

Assessed Fees

5% Client Security Board

Administration Services;

Professional Firms Filing Fees; Costs

Imposed, etc.

Mississippi 9,116 $836,196 N/A N/A 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

Missouri 26,136 $3,246,337 $2,695,273 $551,064


Fees 0%

Montana 3,877 $563,000 $488,000 $75,000 87% Bar Association

Dues

13% Supreme Court General

Budget

Nebraska 6,900 $632,005 Included N/A


Fees 0%

New Hampshire 5,500 $1,257,000 Included N/A


Fees 0%





37



24. Total Lawyer


($)








Funding

New Jersey 75,526 $12,974,963 $10,510,525 $2,464,438


Fees 0%

New Mexico 6,900 $1,000,000 Included N/A


Fees 0% New York: 1st Department 92,998 $4,049,247 Included N/A

100% Legislative Appropriation 0%


2nd, 11th & 13th Districts 18,346 $1,065,000 Included N/A


New York: 2nd Department/ 9th District 15,734 N/A $2,193,184 N/A


New York: 2nd Department/ 10th District 22,728 $2,585,529 N/A N/A N/A N/A





38



24. Total Lawyer


($)








Funding

New York: 3rd Department 65,000 $1,436,209 N/A N/A N/A N/A


Districts 14,588 $2,183,959 N/A N/A 100% Legislative

Appropriation 0%

North Carolina 27,938 $3,994,753 $3,913,453 $81,299 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

North Dakota 2,997 $525,906 Included N/A

33% Bar Association Dues / 67% Supreme

Court Assessed Fees 0%

OhioN 44,157 $5,380,507 $2,887,559 $682,474


Fees 0%

Oklahoma 18,108 $1,326,811 Included N/A







39



24. Total Lawyer


($)








Funding

OregonN 15,178 $2,920,188 $2,159,758 $45,730 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

Pennsylvania 64,750 $10,004,981 N/A N/A


Fees 0%

Rhode Island 5,576 $1,270,136 Included N/A


Fees 0%

South CarolinaN 12,313 $2,000,000 $1,400,000 $600,000



Tennessee 21,980 $3,503,695 Included $12,997 94% Bar Association

Dues

2% Supreme Court Assessed Fees /

4% Other

TexasN 98,671 N/A $9,217,847 N/A N/A N/A

Utah 9,148 $1,194,952 Included N/A 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%





40



24. Total Lawyer


($)








Funding

Vermont 2,700 N/A N/A N/A


Fees 0%

Virginia 31,247 $5,007,630 Included N/A 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%

Washington 31,126 $5,534,537 $5,224,075 $310,462 100% Not Earmarked 0%

West Virginia 6,669 $1,112,295 Included Included N/A N/A

Wisconsin 25,169 $3,556,400 Included N/A 92% Supreme Court

Assessed Fees

8% Court Costs, Pro Hac Vice &

Other

Wyoming 2,879 $356,154 $332,404 $23,750 100% Bar

Association Dues 0%





41

CHART VII NOTES



Colorado

Q24: The total budget for Attorney Regulation Counsel in 2014 was $10,623,507. This includes Admissions, CLE Regulation, Judicial Discipline, Colorado Lawyer Assistance Program and Colorado Mentoring Program. When these items are removed, the budget for attorney discipline/diversion programs is $6,477,180.

Ohio

Q24-Q26: The responses reflect actual expenditures in FY 2016 (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016). In addition to the amounts listed, the adjudicative office provided a total of $1,819,419 in reimbursements to local bar certified grievance committees pursuant to Rule V, Section 7. The total expenditures reported for Q24 includes this amount in addition to the amounts reported for Q25 and Q26.

Oregon Q24: Total budget includes Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, Client Assistance Office (intake office) and estimated portion of General Counsel Office (adjudicative staffing) budget attributed to staffing adjudicative function.

Oregon Q25: Disciplinary Counsel’s Office only; does not include Client Assistance Office (intake office) or any portion of General Counsel Office (adjudicative staffing).

South Carolina Q24-Q26: Estimated.

Texas Q25: Total budget includes Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Unlicensed Practice of Law Committee, and Grievance Oversight Committee.





42

28. Annual fees/dues required per lawyer to practice law:

Jurisdiction No Tiers Specified 0-1 year 1-2

years 2-3

years 3-4

years 4-5

years 5+

years Inactive Other

Alabama $300

Alaska $660

70 years old / 25 years of practice

= $335

Arizona $335 $335 $490 $490 $490 $490

Arkansas $125 $125 $125 $125 $200 $200 $100

Colorado $190 $190 $190 $325 $325 $325 $130 (Under Age 65) Inactive (Over Age 65) = $0

Delaware $125 $125 $125 $125 $125 $165 More than 10 Years = $240 District of Columbia $295 $163

Florida $265

Georgia $244

For the first four years a member pays $50 Bar Center Assessment

& $25 Clients' Security Fund Assessment in addition to dues =

$319

Hawai'i $150 $150 $150

$150

$150

$250



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART VIII

ANNUAL REGISTRATION DUES & FEES IN STATE DISCIPLINARY SYSTEMS

43



years 2-3

years 3-4

years 4-5

years 5+


Idaho

See Other $320 $320 $425 $425 $425

Less than 1 year admitted Jan - June = $175 / Less than 1 year

admitted July - Dec = $115 72+ years old = $70

Illinois $0 $121 $121 $382 $382 $382

Indiana $180

Iowa $255

Kansas $175

Kentucky $220 $220 $220 $220 $310 Members of the Judiciary = $150

Louisiana $170 $170 $170 $235 $235 $235

Maine $160 $160 $160 $265 $265 $265

Over 50 Years = $140 / Judges =

$40

Maryland $130

Massachusetts $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $300 Over 50 Years & Active = $20

Michigan $285 Active 50+ Years = $105

Minnesota $120 $120 $120 $254 $254 $254

Active less than 3 years & income

less than $25,000 = $106





44



years 2-3

years 3-4

years 4-5

years 5+


Mississippi $100 $100 $175 $175 $310 $310 $50

Missouri $280 $280 $280 $410 $410 $410 $50 Non-Resident = $325

Montana $395

Nebraska $98 $49

New Hampshire $495 $495 $495 $495 $545 $545

New Jersey $35 $183 $183 $212

New Mexico $350 $350 $350 $410 $410 $410 New York: 1st Department $375 Biennially


2nd 11th & 13th Districts $375

Biennially New York: 2nd Department/9th

District $375

Biennially New York: 2nd

Department/10th District $375

Biennially





45



years 2-3

years 3-4

years 4-5

years 5+


New York: 3rd Department $375

Biennially


Districts $375

Biennially North Carolina $325 North Dakota $325 $350 $350 $350 $350 $380

Ohio $175

Oklahoma $137.50 $275 $275 $275 $275 $275

Oregon $453 $453 $537 $537 $537 $537 $125

More than 15 Years and Practice Limited to Pro Bono Only = $125 /

More than 50 Years = $0 Pennsylvania $200

Rhode Island $340 $340 $340 $340 $340 $425 $190

Fee includes: Mandatory Bar Dues

and Annual Court Registration

South Carolina $245 $245 $245 $360 $360 $360

Judicial Staff = $195-240 / Limited

= $280

Rhode Island $340 340 340 340 340 425

Tennessee $170





46



years 2-3

years 3-4

years 4-5

years 5+


Texas $68 $68 $68 $148 $148 $235 Over 70 years old = $0

Utah $250 $250 $250 $425 $425 $425 Vermont $205

Virginia $250

Washington $192.50 $192.50 $355 $355 $355 $355

West Virginia $100 $200 $200 $250 $250 $250

Wisconsin $280 $280 $280 $490 $490 $490

Wyoming $237.50 $237.50 $237.50 $237.50 $350





47

Jurisdiction

29. Chief Disciplinary

Counsel

30. Other Disciplinary

Counsel 31. Other Lawyers

32. Investigators

33. Legal Assistants / Paralegals

34. Secretarial / Clerical /

Administration

35. Law Students /

Clerks

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Alabama 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Alaska 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arizona 1.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Arkansas 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Colorado 1.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Delaware 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

District of Columbia 1.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Florida 1.0 0.0 41.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 9.0 0.0 62.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 Georgia 1.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hawai'i 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Idaho 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Illinois 1.0 0.0 34.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 9.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Indiana 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Iowa 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.75 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kansas 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.00 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kentucky 1.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Louisiana 1.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

Maine 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Maryland 1.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Massachusetts 1.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 14.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Michigan 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 2.0 0.0



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART IX – PART A

STAFFING OF DISCIPLINARY COUNCEL OFFICES

48

Jurisdiction


Counsel



32. Investigators



Administration

35. Law Students /

Clerks

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Minnesota 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 9.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 Mississippi 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Missouri 1.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Montana 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nebraska 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New Hampshire 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Jersey 1.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 New Mexico 1.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New York: 1st Department 1.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York: 2nd Department/

2nd, 11th & 13th Districts 1.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York: 2nd Department/

9th District 1.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 New York: 2nd

Department/10th DistrictN 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 New York: 3rd Department 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York: 4th Department/

5th, 7th & 8th Districts 1.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 North Carolina 1.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 9.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 North Dakota 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ohio 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 0.0





49

Jurisdiction


Counsel



32. Investigators



Administration

35. Law Students /

Clerks

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Oklahoma 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Oregon 1.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.0

Pennsylvania 1.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Rhode Island 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South Carolina 1.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tennessee 1.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Texas 1.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Utah 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vermont 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Virginia 1.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Washington 1.0 0.0 16.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.2 0.15 West Virginia 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wisconsin 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 17.0 0.00 2.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wyoming 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0





50

CHART IX – PART A NOTES

Connecticut, Nevada, and South Dakota had not provided data by the publication date.

New York: 2nd Department/10th District Q35: Law students varies.





51

Jurisdiction 36. Auditors 37. Probation Monitors 38. Other Staff Other Staff Details 39. TOTAL PAID

STAFF

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time Full

Time Part Time

Alabama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 12.0 0.0 Alaska 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 6.0 0.0

Arizona 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Lawyer Regulation Records

Department Staff 35.0 0.0 Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 7.0 0.0

Colorado 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 IT, Information Officer, Accounting

Office / Operations Mangers 47.0 0.0 Delaware 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 5.0 1.0

District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 35.0 0.0 Florida 6.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 124.0 23.0 Georgia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 22.0 0.0 Hawai'i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 13.0 1.0 Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 7.0 1.0 Illinois 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 N/A 65.0 6.5 Indiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Law Students 16.0 3.0

Iowa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 9.0 1.05 Kansas 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 IT 13.0 3.0

Kentucky 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 19.0 0.0 Louisiana 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 30.0 2.0

Maine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Executive Director 11.0 1.0



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART IX – PART B


52


STAFF

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time Full

Time Part Time

Maryland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1 Executive Secretary / 1

Administrator 30.0 0.0 Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Technology Specialist 55.0 1.0

Michigan 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 36.0 0.0 Minnesota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 26.0 4.0 Mississippi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 5.0 0.0

Missouri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 IT Administrator 25.5 2.0 Montana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 6.0 0.0 Nebraska 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 6.0 0.0

New Hampshire 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 9.6 0.0 New Jersey 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 IT Administrator 68.0 1.0 New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 5.9 0.0

New York: 1st Department 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Office Manager / Accountant /Data

Entry / LAN Administrator 37.0 0.0 New York: 2nd Department/

2nd, 11th & 13th Districts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 14.0 2.0 New York: 2nd Department/

9th District 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 17.0 2.0 New York: 2nd Department/10th

District 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 20.0 1.0 New York: 3rd Department 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 14.0 0.0





53


STAFF

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time Full

Time Part Time

New York: 4th Department/ 5th, 7th & 8th Districts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 1.0

North Carolina 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 Attorney / Client Assistance

Program 43.0 4.0 North Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 4.0 0.0

Ohio 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 22.0 2.0 Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 15.0 2.0

Oregon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.0 0.0

3 Lawyers / 2 Administrative Assistants in separate intake office

(CAO) 15.0 1.0 Pennsylvania 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Law Students / Clerks Temps 53.0 2.0 Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 8.0 0.0

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 14.0 0.0 Tennessee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 IT Administrator 32.0 0.0

Texas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Office Managers 92.0 0.0 Utah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 10.0 1.0

Vermont 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 1.0 1.0 Virginia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 34.0 0.0

Washington 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Department Administrator 38.0 0.2 West Virginia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 9.0 0.0

Wisconsin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 31.0 0.0 Wyoming 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 2.0 0.0





54

Jurisdiction 40. Non-Lawyer Head of Office

41. Chief Adjudicative

Counsel

42. Other Adjudicative

Counsel

43. Other Lawyers on

Staff


45. Secretarial / Clerical

Administration

46. Law Students /

Clerks

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Colorado 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Georgia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25 0.0 0.0 Hawai'i 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Illinois 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Iowa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.23 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.65 0.0 0.0

Kansas 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 Louisiana 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Massachusetts 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Michigan 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Missouri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Montana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

New Jersey 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 North Carolina 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 North Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ohio 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oregon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.35 0.0 0.0

Pennsylvania 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


1 | P a g e


2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART X – PART A

STAFFING OF ADJUDICATIVE OFFICES

55

Jurisdiction 40. Non-Lawyer Head of Office

41. Chief Adjudicative

Counsel

42. Other Adjudicative

Counsel

43. Other Lawyers on

Staff


45. Secretarial / Clerical

Administration

46. Law Students /

Clerks

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

Full Time

Part Time

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vermont 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Washington 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wyoming 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


2 | P a g e




56

CHART X – PART A NOTES

Not all jurisdictions maintain this data and therefore the following jurisdictions did not provide data for this chart: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York: 1st Dept., New York: 2nd Dept./9th District, New York: 2nd Dept./10th District, New York:2nd Dept./2nd, 11th & 13th Districts, New York: 3rd Dept., New York: 4th Dept./5th, 7th & 8th Districts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Connecticut, Nevada, and South Dakota had not provided data by the publication date.


3 | P a g e




57

Jurisdiction 47. Other Staff 47. Other Staff Details 48. TOTAL Paid Staff

Full Time Part Time Full

Time Part Time

Colorado 0.0 0.0 N/A 3.0 3.0 District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 N/A 11.0 0.0

Georgia 0.0 0.50

.25 = Independent Contractor for Review Panel Lawyer / .25 = Coordinating Special Master 0.0 0.75

Hawai'i 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 1.0 Idaho 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 1.0 Illinois 0.0 0.0 N/A 5.0 2.5 Iowa 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 1.08

Kansas 0.0 0.0 N/A 1.0 0.0

Louisiana 8.0 3.0

Full Time: 2 Accounting; 5 IT; 1 Media. Part Time: 2 Media; 1

Accounting 19.0 3.0

Massachusetts 9.0 0.0 3 IT Staff; 4 Registration Staff; 2

Bookkeepers 21.0 0.0 Michigan 0.0 0.0 N/A 7.0 1.0 Missouri 0.0 0.0 N/A 3.0 0.0 Montana 0.0 0.0 N/A 1.0 1.0 Nebraska 0.0 0.0 N/A 48.0 0.0

New Jersey 1.0 0.0 IT Staff 17.0 0.0 North Carolina 0.0 0.0 N/A 1.0 0.0 North Dakota 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 1.0



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART X – PART B


58

Jurisdiction 47. Other Staff 47. Other Staff Details 48. TOTAL Paid Staff

Full Time Part Time Full

Time Part Time

Ohio 0.0 0.0 N/A 4.0 1.0 Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0

Oregon 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.45 Pennsylvania 0.0 0.0 N/A 10.0 0.0

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 N/A 7.0 0.0 Vermont 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 1.0

Washington 0.0 0.0 N/A 1.00 0.4 Wyoming 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 1.0





59

CHART X – PART B NOTES

Not all jurisdictions maintain this data and therefore the following jurisdictions did not provide data for this chart: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York: 1st Dept., New York: 2nd Dept./9th District, New York: 2nd Dept./10th District, New York:2nd Dept./2nd, 11th & 13th Districts, New York: 3rd Dept., New York: 4th Dept./5th, 7th & 8th Districts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. N/A = Data not available or applicable Connecticut, Nevada, and South Dakota had not provided data by the publication date.





60

Jurisdiction 49a. % Nonlawyer Member

Volunteers at Hearing Cte/Trial Level

49b. % Nonlawyer Member Volunteers at Appellate / Board

Level

Alaska 33.0% 25.0% Arizona 33.0% 0.0%

Arkansas 28.6% N/A Colorado 33.0% N/A

District of Columbia 33.0% 22.0% Georgia 0.0% 33.0% Hawai’i 24.0% 28.0% Idaho 33.3% 33.3% Illinois 33.0% 0.0% Iowa 20.0% N/A

Kansas 0.0% 0.0% Louisiana 33.0% 33.0%

Massachusetts 33.3% 33.3% Michigan 0.0% 33.0% Missouri 33.0% 33.0% Montana 36.0% N/A Nebraska 30.0% 30.0%

New Hampshire 40.0% 33.0% New Jersey 33.3% 33.3% New Mexico 33.0% 33.0%

New York: 4th Department/ 5th, 7th & 8th Districts 14.0% N/A



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART X – PART C

DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS ADJUDICATORS

61

Jurisdiction 49a. % Nonlawyer Member

Volunteers at Hearing Cte/Trial Level

49b. % Nonlawyer Member Volunteers at Appellate / Board

Level

North Carolina 33.3% 0.0% North Dakota 33.3% 27.3%

Ohio 33.0% 14.0% Oklahoma 33.0% N/A

Oregon 33.0% 0.0% Pennsylvania 0.0% 15.0%

South Carolina 33.0% N/A Tennessee N/A 25.0%

Utah 23% N/A Vermont 33.3% N/A

Washington 0.0% 29.0% Wyoming 28.5% N/A



2015 SURVEY ON LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS (S.O.L.D.)CHART X – PART C

DISCIPLINE SYSTEMS ADJUDICATORS

62

AAMMEERRIICCAANN BBAARR AASSSSOOCCIIAATTIIOONN CCEENNTTEERR FFOORR PPRROOFFEESSSSIIOONNAALL RREESSPPOONNSSIIBBIILLIITTYY

SSUURRVVEEYY OONN LLAAWWYYEERR DDIISSCCIIPPLLIINNEE SSYYSSTTEEMMSS ((SS..OO..LL..DD..)) 22001155 DDAATTAA

The American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility is the only organization that collects, analyzes, and compiles statistics about lawyer regulatory systems on a national basis. This data, which is published as the ABA Survey on Lawyer Disciplinary Systems (S.O.L.D.), serves to educate the public, the profession, the news media, the judiciary, and disciplinary agencies about disciplinary sanctions, caseload, staffing, and budgetary activity in each jurisdiction. Information from the Survey has been used by courts and disciplinary agencies to effect changes in caseload management, staffing, and funding for their systems. As a result, it is essential that the Center maintain accurate data with respect to each jurisdiction. We appreciate your cooperation in helping us collect this vital data. Your timely responses are especially appreciated. Prompt responses to the questionnaire allow us to publish the data in a manner that is most useful to courts, disciplinary agencies, and the public. If you have any questions regarding your response, please contact Deputy Regulation Counsel Theresa Gronkiewicz at [email protected] as soon as possible. "Terms and Phrases" are included and referenced at several points in the Survey questionnaire. You may find it convenient to print them prior to starting the Survey. The Survey is published electronically on the Center for Professional Responsibility’s web site at Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems. The Center will begin posting available data in late October 2016. Any suggestions for future modifications that would increase the usefulness of the Survey are welcome and appreciated. PPLLEEAASSEE RREETTUURRNN TTHHEE CCOOMMPPLLEETTEEDD QQUUEESSTTIIOONNNNAAIIRREE BBYY SSEEPPTTEEMMBBEERR 3300 22001166

TO: Kimley Grant

American Bar Association, Center for Professional Responsibility 321 North Clark Street, 17th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60654-7598 PH: (312) 988-5319 FAX: (312) 988-5280 EMAIL: [email protected]

©American Bar Association June 2016 – SLDQ15 Center for Professional Responsibility - 1 -


http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/resources/surveyonlawyerdisciplinesystems2014.html




Please provide the following Jurisdiction Contact Information Jurisdiction: Person Reporting: Title: Telephone: E-Mail Address: So that the Center may maintain accurate information for the Directory of State Disciplinary Agencies, please complete the following information for the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the Disciplinary Board Chair. Name of Chief Disciplinary Counsel: Title: Address: General Phone: Direct Phone: Fax: E-Mail Address: Website (if available): Name of Disciplinary Board Chair: Title: Name of Chief Adjudicative Counsel or Non-Lawyer Head of Adjudicative Office of the Disciplinary System:

Title: Address: Phone: Fax: E-Mail Address:


http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/directory_disciplinary_agencies_online.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/directory_disciplinary_agencies_online.pdf



TTEERRMMSS && PPHHRRAASSEESS

The following explanation of terms and phrases used in the Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems is provided to assist in the collection of data. Adjudicative Office of the Disciplinary System: The adjudicative office of the disciplinary system is comprised of the professional lawyer and nonlawyer staff, as defined below, who support the system’s adjudicators in the performance of their duties, including administrative functions. For purposes of this Survey, the actual adjudicators are excluded from this definition of the adjudicative office. The adjudicative office may operate from a different location than the investigative/prosecutorial branch of the disciplinary agency, or it may be located within the same office space, but separated physically. Examples of titles of the adjudicative office include the Lawyer/Attorney Disciplinary Board, Disciplinary Review Board, Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Board of Professional Responsibility or Commission. Adjudicative Counsel: Lawyers employed by the disciplinary agency to work for the adjudicative branch of the system (excluding counsel to the jurisdiction’s highest court). These lawyers do not perform investigative or prosecutorial functions. They are responsible for assisting disciplinary system adjudicators, including Hearing Committees/Panels, Appellate Board members, and Presiding Disciplinary Judges. Their duties include conducting legal research, assisting adjudicators with trial and oral argument preparation, and preparing bench briefs, draft reports and recommendations. The Chief Adjudicative Counsel may also be referred to as the Executive Director, Counsel or General Counsel of the Disciplinary Board. Adjudicative Staff: All nonlawyer staff in the adjudicative office of the disciplinary agency (excluding staff of the jurisdiction’s highest court). In some jurisdictions the head of the adjudicative office is not a lawyer and may be referred to as the Executive Director or Administrator of the Disciplinary Board. Alternatives to Discipline Program (also known as Diversion): A program allowing for complaints involving lesser misconduct to be handled administratively prior or subsequent to the filing of charges. The respondent and disciplinary counsel enter into an contract tailored to the circumstances of the case whereby the respondent is referred to a remedial program that may include fee arbitration, arbitration, mediation, law office management assistance, a lawyer assistance program, psychological counseling, continuing legal education programs, ethics school or any other program authorized by the court. The respondent’s participation is voluntary. Upon the respondent’s successful completion of the program, the contract is terminated and the complaint dismissed. A breach of the contract may result in the resumption of




the disciplinary proceedings. An Alternatives to Discipline Program is not a disciplinary sanction, like probation. Complaint: Any information received by the disciplinary agency regarding lawyer conduct that requires a determination as to whether the disciplinary agency has jurisdiction over the lawyer or matter(s) complained of, or whether sufficient facts are alleged that would, if true, constitute misconduct. These complaints are sometimes called “grievances” or “requests for the investigation of a lawyer.” These complaints may be in the form of a written submission, e-mail submission, a telephone or in-person discussion whose contents are reduced to writing, or other information received by the disciplinary agency, including written, audio or visual media reports, records of criminal convictions, etc. Disbarment on Consent: A form of discipline on consent whereby a lawyer against whom formal charges are pending tenders a conditional admission to the allegations of misconduct, agrees that the appropriate sanction for that misconduct is disbarment and requests that the appropriate authority, typically the highest court, impose that sanction. In some jurisdictions, disbarment on consent is referred to as resignation with charges pending. In other jurisdictions, a resignation, with or without charges pending, means that a lawyer who is retired, or no longer engaged in the practice of law in that jurisdiction, asks to assume inactive status. The latter form of resignation does not constitute a disciplinary sanction for purposes of this Survey and should not be reported. Charges: After a determination has been made that there is probable cause to believe that misconduct occurred, any document, pleading or notice filed by the disciplinary agency or appropriate authority with the designated adjudicatory tribunal, wherein a lawyer is charged with specified acts of misconduct and violations of the rules of professional conduct and a disciplinary sanction is sought. Investigation: Any inquiry into allegations of misconduct contained in the initial complaint to the disciplinary agency, including, but not limited to, asking the lawyer who is the subject of the complaint to respond to the allegations, interviewing witnesses and/or obtaining documentary evidence concerning the allegations. Misconduct: A violation of the applicable rules of professional conduct. Private/Non-Public Sanction: Any disciplinary sanction where the identity of the lawyer sanctioned is kept confidential. Such private sanctions may include censure, admonition or reprimand. In cases where a lawyer receives a private sanction, a description of the conduct for which that lawyer has been disciplined, without disclosing the name of the lawyer, may still be published for the




education of the profession and the public. For purposes of this Survey, if such publication occurs the sanction is still considered private/non-public. Screened Out/Summarily Dismissed Without Investigation: The disposal of a complaint by the disciplinary agency, whether or not that complaint is accorded file status or is docketed, without seeking any information in addition to that which is contained in the initial complaint, including but not limited to complaints disposed of for lack of jurisdiction or for not alleging sufficient facts that would, if true, constitute misconduct.




Please fill in the appropriate figures for the calendar/fiscal year 2015. If data is provided for a fiscal year, please identify the time period below. Where a question asks for an average, such as in Part II, please provide that number for the calendar/fiscal year that you use. Some questions will ask for data relating to other years. If you have any concerns regarding how to respond to a particular question, please contact Theresa Gronkiewicz, Deputy Regulation Counsel at [email protected]. The Survey questionnaire is intended to be as brief as possible, while still allowing us to gather essential, accurate and complete information. We understand that this can be complicated by the diversity of lawyer discipline systems and terminology utilized by the various agencies. As a result, where necessary, please provide footnotes on the last page of the questionnaire to any responses where there is a major variation in procedures. We will include explanatory footnotes to the extent possible. If your jurisdiction does not maintain the type of data or engage in the type of activity requested, please answer with the designation N/A. Please indicate estimates by adding an asterisk* to that response.

Question Calendar Year 2015

Fiscal Year

Data provided is based on: From: __________

To: ____________

PPAARRTT II:: CCAASSEE PPRROOCCEESSSSIINNGG && SSAANNCCTTIIOONN SSTTAATTIISSTTIICCSS

AA.. LLAAWWYYEERR PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN Question Response

2015 Q1. Total number of lawyers, resident and nonresident, with active licenses

to practice law in your jurisdiction in the calendar/fiscal year:

BB.. CCAASSEE PPRROOCCEESSSSIINNGG SSTTAATTIISSTTIICCSS Question Response

2015 Q2. Total number of complaints (as defined in Terms & Phrases) received by

the disciplinary agency regarding lawyer conduct during the calendar/fiscal year:

Q2-a.

Does your jurisdiction have a Central Intake Program (sometimes referred to as Consumer Assistance Program)





Question Response

2015

Q2-b.

If the total number of complaints received by the agency does not include matters handled by Central Intake or other Consumer Assistance program, how many matters were handled separately by Central Intake or other Consumer Assistance programs?

Q3. Total number of complaints received by the disciplinary agency prior to the calendar/fiscal year that were still pending on the first day of the calendar/fiscal year:

Q4. Total number of complaints that were screened out/ summarily dismissed without investigation (as defined in Terms & Phrases) during the calendar/fiscal year. (This number may include complaints that were received prior to the 2015 calendar/fiscal year, but were not so disposed of until then):

Q5. Total number of complaints that were investigated during the calendar/fiscal year. (This number should include complaints from previous years that were still pending as of the first day of the 2015 calendar/fiscal years, as well as complaints received during that year):

Q6. Of the total number of complaints reported in response to Question 5, how many were closed or dismissed by the disciplinary agency during the calendar/fiscal year 2015 after a determination that there was not a sufficient basis to warrant charges (as defined in Terms & Phrases).

Q7. Total number of lawyers against whom charges (as defined in Terms & Phrases) were brought in the calendar/fiscal year 2015:

CC.. DDIIVVEERRSSIIOONN Question Response

2015 Q8. Does your jurisdiction have an Alternatives to Discipline Program /

Diversion Program (as defined in Terms & Phrases)?

Q8-a. Yes, we have a program but data is not maintained: Q9. Total number of complaints received by agency referred to an

Alternatives Discipline Program/Diversion Program?

Of the total number reported in response to Question 9, what is the number of respondents who: Q9-a. Successfully completed the program:

Q9-b. Did not successfully complete the program:

Q9-c. Are still participating in the program:




Question Response

2015 Q9-d. Data regarding either Q9a, 9b or 9c unavailable at this time:

DD.. SSAANNCCTTIIOONNSS IIMMPPOOSSEEDD

Question Response 2015

Q10. What is the total number of lawyers who received private/ non-public disciplinary sanctions during the 2015 calendar/fiscal year:

Of the total number of lawyers who received private/non-public disciplinary sanctions in response to Question 10, what is the total number of lawyers who received the following in 2015: Q10-a. Admonition:

Q10-b. Private Reprimand:

Q10-c. Letter of Warning/Caution or other (please specify):

Q11. Total number of lawyers who received public disciplinary sanctions in the 2015 calendar/fiscal year:

Of the total number of lawyers who received public disciplinary sanctions in response to Question 11, what is the total number of lawyers who received the following in 2015: Q11-a. Involuntary/Adjudicated Disbarments:

Q11-b. Disbarments on Consent (including applicable Resignations as defined in the Terms & Phrases):

Q11-c. Suspensions (excluding interim suspensions):

Q11-d. Interim Suspensions (for risk of harm, criminal conviction or other reason):

Q11-e. Public Admonishments, Reprimands, or Censures:

Q11-f. Probation (including probation imposed in combination with other sanctions, e.g., a suspension for a period of time followed by probation):

Q11-g. Ordered to pay Restitution:

Q11-h. Ordered to pay Costs:




EE.. RREEIINNSSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT AANNDD RREEAADDMMIISSSSIIOONN SSTTAATTIISSTTIICCSS


Q12. Total number of lawyers who sought reinstatement/readmission to the practice of law during the calendar/fiscal years 2015:

Q13. Total number of lawyers who were reinstated/readmitted in the calendar/fiscal years 2015 after:

Q13-a. Disbarment-Involuntary/Adjudicated or Consensual (as defined in the Terms & Phrases):

Q13-b. Suspension:

Q13-c. Reinstated after transfer to disability inactive status:

Q14. Total number of lawyers whose requests for reinstatement / readmission were denied and/or dismissed, voluntarily or involuntarily, during the calendar/fiscal years 2015:

PPAARRTT IIII:: CCAASSEE LLOOAADD SSTTAATTIISSTTIICCSS

AA.. DDIISSCCIIPPLLIINNAARRYY CCOOUUNNSSEELL


Q15. What was the average caseload per staff lawyer in each calendar/fiscal year 2015? (Caseload or cases means the number of investigations, charges).

Q16. What was the average number of cases per staff lawyer carried over into the calendar/fiscal year 2015 from previous years?

Q17. What was the average number of new cases assigned per staff lawyer in the calendar/fiscal years 2015?

Q18. What was the average number of cases closed per staff lawyer during the calendar/fiscal years 2015?




BB.. CCAASSEE PPRROOCCEESSSSIINNGG TTIIMMEESS Please indicate estimates by asterisks Question Response

2015 During each of the calendar/fiscal year 2015, What was:

Q19. The average number of days to process a complaint from the receipt of the complaint to screening out/summary dismissal without investigation, (as defined in Terms & Phrases)?

Q20. The average number of days to process a complaint from the receipt of the complaint to closure or dismissal after investigation if no charges are filed?

Q21. The average number of days to process a complaint from the receipt of the complaint to the filing of charges (as defined in Terms & Phrases)?

Q22. The average the of days to process a complaint from the filing of charges to the imposition of:

Q22-a. Private/Non-Public Sanction:

Q22-b. Public Sanction:

Q23. The average number of days to process a petition, motion or request for reinstatement/readmission to the practice of law, from the time the petition, motion or request is filed to final disposition?

PPAARRTT IIIIII:: AANNNNUUAALL RREEGGIISSTTRRAATTIIOONN DDUUEESS && FFEEEESS // BBUUDDGGEETT

AA.. BBUUDDGGEETT AANNDD SSOOUURRCCEESS OOFF FFUUNNDDIINNGG Question Response

2015 Q24. Total budget for the lawyer discipline system--disciplinary

counsel’s office and the adjudicative office of the discipline system(as defined in Terms& Phrases)-- in calendar/fiscal year 2015:

$

Q25. Of the amount in response to Question 24, the total budget for disciplinary counsel’s office:

$

Q26. Of the amount in response to Question 25, the total budget for the adjudicative office of the disciplinary system (as defined in Terms & Phrases):

$

Q27. Please indicate the percentage of funding from each source. Q27-a. Bar Association Dues:

%

Q27-b. Supreme Court Assessed Fees: %




Question Response

2015

Q27-c. Supreme Court General Budget:

%

Q27-d. Legislative Appropriation: % Q27-e. Other (please specify): %

BB.. AANNNNUUAALL RREEGGIISSTTRRAATTIIOONN DDUUEESS AANNDD FFEEEESS Please respond to the following for the calendar/fiscal year 2015. Question Response

2015 Q28. Annual fees/dues required per lawyer to practice law: $

If there is a scale related to years of practice, please include from lowest to highest:

Years in Practice Annual Fees/Dues

PPAARRTT IIVV:: SSTTAAFFFFIINNGG OOFF DDIISSCCIIPPLLIINNAARRYY AAGGEENNCCYY

Please report the total number of full-time equivalents for 2015 in each category, e.g., when two individuals are each employed part-time for 50% of the work week, they equal one full-time equivalent. Decimals may be used, e.g., when three individuals are each employed part-time for 50% of the work week, they equal 1.5 full-time equivalents. Please report paid staff only.

AA.. DDIISSCCIIPPLLIINNAARRYY CCOOUUNNSSEELL OOFFFFIICCEESS

Position Full-Time Part-Time 2015 2015

Q29. Chief Disciplinary Counsel: Q30. Other Disciplinary Counsel: Q31. Other Lawyers on Staff: Q32. Investigators: Q33. Legal Assistants / Paralegals: Q34. Secretarial / Clerical/ Administrative

Personnel:

Q35. Law Students / Clerks: Q36. Auditors:




Position Full-Time Part-Time

2015 2015 Q37. Probation Monitors: Q38. Other Staff not reflected above:

(please specify category of personnel)

Q39. TOTAL number of paid disciplinary counsel’s office staff: (should be the sum of Q29 through Q 38)

BB.. AADDJJUUDDIICCAATTIIVVEE OOFFFFIICCEESS Position Full-Time Part-Time

2015 2015 Q40. Non-Lawyer Head of Office: Q41. Chief Adjudicative Counsel: Q42. Other Adjudicative Counsel: Q43. Other Lawyers on Staff: Q44. Legal Assistants / Paralegals: Q45. Secretarial / Clerical / Administrative

Personnel:

Q46. Law Students / Clerks: Q47. Other Staff not reflected above:

(please specify category of personnel)

Q48. TOTAL number of paid staff for Disciplinary Board: (should be the sum of Q40 through Q47)

Q49. What is the percentage of nonlawyers serving as adjudicators at the:

Q49-a. Hearing Committee/Trial level: Q49-b. Appellate/Board level: Please use the below space for any footnotes to any responses where there is a major variation in procedures.


2015 Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems (S.O.L.D.) · Liaison, ABA Solo, ... Responses correspond...

Documents

Transcript of 2015 Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems (S.O.L.D.) · Liaison, ABA Solo, ... Responses correspond...