WHAT A METHODOLOGICALLY-SOUND REVIEW
OF NEW YORK's ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM
WOULD LOOK LIKE
Judiciary Law §90 Judiciary's "Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters"
22 NYCRR 12040
1st Dept further rules
2nd Dept further rules
3rd Dept further rules
4th Dept further rules
Examining the Law, as Applied --
(1) the Judiciary's annual reports of its attorney grievance committees; and its annual budgetary allocations for the attorney grievance committees;
(2) examination of attorney misconduct complaints, filed with the attorney grievance committees, the records of committee proceedings thereon, and
& the decision/orders of attorney discipline of the Appellate Divisions and Court of Appeals;
(3) lawsuits against the Judiciary & its attorney grievance committees --
& the records thereon;
(4) the Judiciary's own oversight over attorney discipline
Examining the History of Oversight
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT -- NONE
no oversight hearing by any legislative committee since 2009 when the Senate Judiciary Committee aborted hearings, after the 2nd, without any investigation of the witness testimony, documentary evidence received, without making any findings or rendering any committee report
click here for:
CJA's DISPOSITIVE written testimony
drafted for aborted 3rd hearing, scheduled for December 16, 2009
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:
(1) Why did the Senate Judiciary Committee not continue the 2009 hearings, and why was there no investigation, no findings, no committee report as to the evidence the Committee had received in connection with those hearings;
(2) when, previously, had the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees -- or any other legislative committee -- held oversight hearings of the attorney disciplinary system?
(3) why did the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees not subsequently hold any oversight hearings of the attorney disciplinary system?
(4) when was the last time that the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committee
put attorney discipline as an item on the agenda of their committee meetings?
(5) when, if at all, did either the Senate or Assembly Judiciary Committee review
the September 24, 2015 report of the Judiciary's own Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline, including its recommendation to “Increase to funding and
staffing across-the-board for the disciplinary committees” (Executive Summary, at p. 4),
stating “Additional funding and staffing must be made available to the disciplinary committees” (at p. 57) -- let alone compare it to the Judiciary's budget requests
for its “Attorney Discipline Program” -- or its other recommendations,
such as for a Statewide Coordinator of Attorney Discipline
and Statewide Advisory Board on Attorney Discipline?
(6) how, if at all, did the the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committee respond
to notice from members of the public that the attorney disciplinary committees
are corrupt, as likewise the Appellate Divisions controlling them.
JUDICIARY OVERSIGHT -- SHAM, FRAUDULENT
Chief Judge Lippman's Commission on Statewide Attorney Disciplinary, whose fraudulent September 24, 2015 report, which made no findings as to the testimony and EVIDENCE of citizens who had filed complaints and brought suit, is established by CJA's testimony at its August 11, 2015 hearing -- of which there is a VIDEO.
OCA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL --
complicit in the corruption of the attorney grievance committees
BAR ASSOCIATION OVERSIGHT
NYS Bar Association
NYC Bar Association
GOING FORWARD --
Testimony of witnesses with direct, first-hand interaction --
starting with complainants & their substantiating complaints, lawsuits -- & FOIL requests
click here for: CJA's subsequent FOIL requests
decisions of interest -- Lovejoy
April 16, 2021 letter from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Legislative Law Article 4
Taking of Testimony in Legislative Committees"