Wrongfulness of Lawyer Licensing, Discipline, and Self-Regulation

The current arrangement of lawyer licensing and discipline violates the separation of powers, and is unconstitutional. It is not even rational, since no group of human beings has ever properly regulated itself in the history of mankind. The results are unfair self-dealt immunities, and countless virtual self-dealt immunities.

There are countless statutorily enumerated duties to the adverse third party in the Rules of Conduct, of Evidence, of Civil and of Criminal Procedure, not to mention case law over 1000 years. Yet, the lawyer is totally immune from liability for damage done to the adverse third party by misconduct. He is almost 99% immune from legal malpractice from his own client. The victim of malpractice must win a double verdict, that malpractice and damage took place, and second that he would have won the original case but for that lawyer malpractice. Next, he must prove that the original defendant was not judgment proof, and that he could have collected from the original defendant. Lastly, he must overcome the defense of the litigation privilege, where faulty judgment is privileged.

If liability is a substitute for violence, then violence against lawyers, and judges has full moral intellectual, and policy justification.

Next, there is no recourse for the public at the licensing level. Almost no civilian complaint is ever investigated properly nor taken seriously. Mostly complaints from judges are.

Writing the The Rules of Conduct is a legislative act. Yet it is done by the Supreme Court of a state. It often plagiarizes these rules from a professional society, the ABA, whose aim is to promote the interest of the lawyer, and not that of the public.

Next, a self-styled prosecutor investigates and prosecutes complaints against the lawyer. That is an executive function. Yet, the Disciplinary Counsel is an employee of the Supreme Court, and claims onto itself all discretions and immunities of a prosecutor, despite not being a real one.

Lastly, the Supreme Court of a state listens to the Disciplinary Counsel's case, the case of its own employee, and a person well know to the court. It then considers the arguments of an outside defense counsel. It is likely to favor which side, that of it s own employee, using all the buzz words provided by the court over time, or that of an argumentative stranger? So the procedural due process right to a fair hearing of the accused lawyer is brazenly violated.