Petition of Sanjeev Lath & a., 154 A.3d 1240

Petitioners Sanjeev Lath and Barbara Belware (unit owners) filed a grievance with the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) alleging attorney John F. Bisson violated the Rules of Professional Conduct at a condominium association meeting (including an alleged unauthorized recording).
ADO reviewed the grievance and exhibits, concluded the evidence would not likely show a clear-and-convincing violation, and declined to docket the grievance as a complaint.
Petitioners requested reconsideration; the Complaint Screening Committee (CSC) affirmed the ADO decision. Petitioners then sought clarification; CSC responded the matter was closed.
Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the New Hampshire Supreme Court arguing the ADO and CSC misapplied the Supreme Court Rules by not docketing the grievance and by not answering specific questions on reconsideration.
Respondents (ADO and Bisson) contested the merits and additionally argued petitioners lacked standing to pursue review. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ADO was required to docket grievance as a complaint	ADO misapplied the rules and should have docketed and investigated	ADO properly exercised discretion after determining clear-and-convincing proof was unlikely	Court did not reach merits; dismissal for lack of standing
Whether CSC erred by affirming ADO denial on reconsideration	CSC should have answered each specific question raised and reversed ADO	CSC properly affirmed ADO; no rule requires answering each question	Court did not reach merits; dismissal for lack of standing
Whether grievants (private complainants) have standing to seek certiorari review of disciplinary dispositions	Petitioners asserted an entitlement to judicial review of ADO/CSC decisions	Respondents argued grievants lack a legally cognizable personal interest in disciplinary outcomes	Held: grievants lack standing because disciplinary proceedings serve public interest, not private rights
Whether certiorari review is appropriate here	Petitioners sought extraordinary review to correct alleged rule violations	Respondents argued certiorari is discretionary and inappropriate absent standing	Court denied certiorari and dismissed petition for lack of standing

Bosse’s Case, 155 N.H. 128 (N.H. 2007) (purpose of attorney discipline to protect public confidence in the bar)
Young’s Case, 154 N.H. 359 (N.H. 2006) (discipline requires clear and convincing evidence of RPC violation)
Melton v. Personnel Comm’n, 119 N.H. 272 (N.H. 1979) (standing requires rights directly affected by lower tribunal decision)
Duncan v. State, 166 N.H. 630 (N.H. 2014) (personal rights must be impaired or prejudiced to confer standing)
Merski, 121 N.H. 901 (N.H. 1981) (disciplinary proceedings are an inquiry addressing public interest, not private redress)
In re Attorney Disciplinary Appeal, 650 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2011) (complainant lacks standing because interest is that of the public at large)
Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1973) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution decisions)
Petition of State of N.H. (State v. MacDonald), 162 N.H. 64 (N.H. 2011) (certiorari is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy)