212 A.3d 623
Vt.2019Background
- Petitioner filed an ethics complaint with Vermont’s Professional Responsibility Program alleging misconduct by an attorney; Bar Counsel screened and dismissed the complaint.
- The Board Chair reviewed and upheld Bar Counsel’s dismissal; petitioner unsuccessfully sought to appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Petitioner then filed a petition for extraordinary relief under V.R.A.P. 21 asking the Court to order Bar Counsel to refer the complaint for further investigation.
- Petitioner later sought to add his former client as a co-petitioner; the Court denied the late addition and noted the client had not filed any grievance.
- The Supreme Court analyzed standing—whether petitioner (or his client) had suffered a legally cognizable injury from the dismissal of the grievance—and dismissed the petition for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a grievant has standing to seek judicial review of dismissal of an attorney-discipline complaint | Petitioner argued Bar Counsel’s dismissal harmed his (and his client’s) rights and constitutional interests (e.g., right to trial free of conflicts), so extraordinary relief is warranted | Bar Counsel argued grievants lack a legally cognizable, personal interest in disciplinary proceedings; only the public and the respondent lawyer have direct stakes | Court held grievants lack standing; dismissal affirmed because disciplinary proceedings protect public interest, not private remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyce v. N.C. State Bar, 814 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (grievant lacks standing to challenge disciplinary authority’s disposition of a grievance)
- In re Petition of Lath, 154 A.3d 1240 (N.H. 2017) (attorney discipline serves public interest; grievant has no personal right or remedy affected by discipline)
- Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of Haw. Sup. Ct., 979 P.2d 1077 (Haw. 1999) (complainant has no more standing to compel discipline than to compel licensing; allowing such suits would waste resources and usurp agency discretion)
- Cotton v. Steele, 587 N.W.2d 693 (Neb. 1999) (disciplinary process is not a means of redress for those personally wronged by an attorney)
- Turner v. Shumlin, 163 A.3d 1173 (Vt. 2017) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)