New York Judge Peels Back Curtain on Attorney Misconduct Cases

A New York appellate judge ruled that those who bring complaints against attorneys in discipline cases have a First Amendment right to attend hearings related to their cases, view documents necessary to understand proceedings, and see some final dispositions.

Public review is essential to hold accountable judges overseeing the process, who are elected to serve fourteen-year terms on the bench and are appointed to their spots by an also-elected governor, the court ruled. The Monday decision applies specifically to the New York Supreme Court Second Appellate Department, which considers whether to publicly discipline attorneys after hearing recommendations from an Attorney Grievance Committee.

“The public cannot have faith in a process that it cannot see,” Judge Victor Marrero of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York wrote.

He made an exception for dispositions made by the chief attorney, who investigates cases before a grievance committee reviews them. The committee isn’t bound to the chief attorney’s recommendations, and they don’t need to be public to allow investigations to remain flexible and to protect attorneys from unsubstantiated accusations, Marrero wrote.

The plaintiffs in this case first filed complaints in 2021, against attorneys in the Queens County District Attorney’s Office. They posted the documents online and asked the Second Department to investigate and publicly discipline the prosecutors. New York City’s former corporation counsel argued that publicizing the complaints was an abuse of the process “to promote a political agenda.”

The status of all 21 original complaints remains unknown, and none of them resulted in public discipline, Marrero wrote.

The complaint names Presiding Justice Hector LaSalle as a defendant. Marrero rejected LaSalle’s argument that he has legislative immunity, saying that withholding information doesn’t count as policymaking.

He also rejected the state’s arguments that granting access to discrete records and legal proceedings could “require an extensive revamp” of court operations.

“Reworking certain recordkeeping procedures (even if cumbersome)” would not be against the law, the court said.

The case is Civil Rights Corps v. LaSalle, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:21-cv-09128-VM-VF, 7/22/24.