1.2.3The disciplinary process and sanctions

Complaints are privileged; complainants face no defamation liability. The Model Rules don't mandate specific sanctions; each state determines its own, with the burden on the prosecuting authority.

A finding of misconduct is worth little without a graduated set of responses; a system with one penalty either crushes small lapses or waves serious ones through. Ranking the sanctions lets the answer match the seriousness, and the machinery around them exists so people will come forward and so impairment is handled as impairment rather than as wrongdoing.

Sanctions run from disbarment down through suspension for a fixed term, with reinstatement at the end of the term unless further proceedings are initiated, then public censure and private censure. Apart from discipline, a lawyer may face disqualification from a matter, malpractice liability, or criminal liability. Another state's misconduct finding is generally accepted as conclusive proof, though the receiving state sets its own sanction.

The disciplinary process and sanctions (no single Model Rule)

Process:

• a complaint goes to the state disciplinary authority, which screens it for whether it states a violation;
• if it proceeds, formal charges issue and the respondent lawyer is entitled to notice of the charges and a hearing before any sanction is imposed.

This is state procedure — the stages and their names vary by state.

Four points on sanctions, most to least severe:

• Disbarment: the most severe sanction, removing the lawyer from practice. Whether a disbarred lawyer may later petition for readmission is a matter of state law and varies by jurisdiction.
• Suspension: removal for a fixed term; automatic reinstatement at term end unless further proceedings are initiated.
• Public censure: formal public reprimand, typically by the highest state court.
• Private censure: formal reprimand not made public.

Non-disciplinary consequences: disqualification from a specific matter; civil malpractice liability; criminal liability.

Sister-state treatment: another state's misconduct finding is generally accepted as conclusive proof; the receiving state sets its own sanction independently.

Federal-court treatment: a state finding is competent evidence evaluated independently; federal courts don't automatically defer.

Disability proceedings: most jurisdictions maintain a separate track; result is suspension until rehabilitation is demonstrated.