Proposed BBO rules nothing but ‘eye
Published: September 15, 2008
To the editor:
regard to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01 and the Board of Bar
Overseers' rules for the proposed amendments, I have several
will not be able to conduct discovery.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
of an oppressive SJC bench and shall continue to be, given that no real
changes are to be effected.
OBC and the BBO are private "affiliated entities." They are not
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.
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!