Proposed BBO rules nothing but ‘eye candy’

Published: September 15, 2008

To the editor:

With regard to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01 and the Board of Bar Overseers' rules for the proposed amendments, I have several observations.

First, lawyers still will not be able to conduct discovery.

Second, lawyers will not be guaranteed or even promised due process. I was given neither proper notice nor an opportunity to be heard. The Office of Bar Counsel failed to include the elements of my alleged violations and ultimately produced no witnesses against me. The BBO hearing officer quashed all my trial witness subpoenas and precluded my proposed trial exhibits.

Third, lawyers will not be guaranteed anything resembling a legitimate public trial. The hearing officer ordered the public to leave the hearing room during my opening statement because I did not use a pseudonym for a complainant, the mother of an out-of-wedlock child sired by my client. The mother, having run for public office, was a public figure. There was no order existing that commanded me to use a pseudonym for the woman.

Fourth, lawyers will not be guaranteed that the transcript at a BBO hearing will not be manipulated and contaminated. The BBO hearing officer ordered the stenographer to go off the record when I spoke and back on when he spoke, so when he ordered the public to leave, I dared not stay for fear that he would fabricate statements and attribute them to me, and I would have no proof to the contrary, i.e., no proof that I did not say what he or the assisting general counsel would swear that I said.

Fifth, lawyers will not be guaranteed that a sham trial will not take place in their absence. At the trial I allegedly was given, only the OBC prosecutor, the special hearing officer and the BBO assistant general counsel were present.

The above list is not exhaustive, but let me not waste your time. The proposed amendments to the SJC and to the BBO rules are nothing but eye candy. The practices and policies for the regulatory system are those of an oppressive SJC bench and shall continue to be, given that no real changes are to be effected. 

The OBC and the BBO are private "affiliated entities." They are not public as they and the Attorney General's Office and the SJC have contended. The OBC and BBO staff are given immunity from suit (in section 9 of SJC Rule 4:01) despite - if we assume arguendo that the OBC and the BBO and their staff are public entities as they contend - Article V of the Declaration of Rights guaranteeing us, the people, at all times accountability by all magistrates and officers of all three branches of our government.

If someone has a complaint against you, let them bring it in a real court, an Article III court, where you just might have a chance to get real justice. Insist that lawyers' rights to the full sweep of due process be recognized. We are people, too!

Barbara C. Johnson

Andover