Legal ethics rules under scrutiny

Arthur Ginsberg says lies by his ex-wife's divorce lawyer harmed his daughters, forced him into bankruptcy and damaged his reputation - yet the well-connected lawyer got off with a warning.

The lawyer, John Griffith, says he didn't even merit a warning. He was simply advocating vigorously for his client based on the evidence he had, he says.

Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court approved temporary rules aimed at speeding up disciplinary proceedings against unethical lawyers. A hearing is scheduled Wednesday on whether to make the rules permanent.

The new rules let staff lawyers at the Attorney Discipline Office or a complaint-screening committee of lawyers and nonlawyers dismiss complaints quickly if it's unlikely they can be proved by "clear and convincing evidence." Supporters say that will ease a years-long backlog of unresolved complaints.

"Not only are the attorneys getting bogged down with these complaints and grievances that hang over their heads for months or years, the complainants suffer," said Richard Uchida, who helped write state ethics rules and defends lawyers charged with misconduct.

But a national legal reform group says the new rules are out of step with other states and American Bar Association standards and will further weaken a discipline system that too often fails to protect the public.

"The case is effectively tried at the screening stage - before a victim has the full opportunity to show evidence," said Suzanne Blonder, general counsel for HALT, a Washington-based group that evaluates state programs with its Lawyer Discipline Report Card. "Consumer protection should never be sacrificed simply for the sake of efficiency."

Ginsberg says his case is a prime example. The Nashua man won custody of his daughters in 2000, but his divorce and post-divorce actions cost him nearly $500,000 in legal fees, he said.

Much of that was spent defending against Griffith's repeated claims that Ginsberg was a stalker with "paranoid personality disorder," had threatened one daughter with a knife and was fraudulently hiding money from a business, he said.

The stalking, mental health and threating charges were decided in Ginsberg's favor, but the divorce judge ruled his business had substantial value and awarded his ex-wife a hefty property settlement and alimony, court records show. The business collapsed, Ginsberg fell behind in his payments, and he went bankrupt.

"My ex got more money than my kids and I did, and that came by John Griffith lying and convincing the judge I had more money than I did," Ginsberg said.

Ginsberg complained in 2002 to the state committee on lawyer discipline, the Professional Conduct Committee. A volunteer lawyer investigated. That investigation is not in the public file. The committee called for a hearing in December 2003.

But the attorney discipline system changed dramatically on Jan. 1, 2004. The committee was split into three panels: a complaint screening committee, a hearings committee to evaluate facts and the Professional Conduct Committee, which decides whether misconduct occurred and imposes or recommends sanctions. The Supreme Court has the final say.

Meanwhile, the Attorney Discipline Office hired more staff to support the committees, including a disciplinary lawyer to bring formal charges and prosecute cases.

That's where Ginsberg's complaint failed.

After more investigation by a part-time assistant, the new disciplinary counsel concluded she couldn't prove misconduct by "clear and convincing evidence." She asked the Professional Conduct Committee to dismiss the complaint while warning Griffith to "take more care in the future to ensure the accuracy and fairness of his pleadings and statements."

Ginsberg and one of his divorce lawyers objected. He argued the disciplinary counsel ignored or misstated key facts, improperly reinvestigated his complaint and applied the wrong legal standard in dismissing it before a hearing. (next page »)