With respect to the proposed rule change listed under Appendix G in the Order R-2001-004, I have the following comment:

It would seem that the person most likely to object to the presence of people with recording devices or cameras in a PCC hearing is the person brought before the committee on charges. That person, the attorney whose professional credentials are being questioned by the committee, should be able to permit any of the proposed prohibited recorders or cameras if he or she believes that the presence of outside recorders will assist the committee in listening carefully to the testimony and making careful decisions. I would propose either withdrawing the proposed rule, or allowing the accused to permit either at his or her sole discretion. If the accused does not want it, then the person seeking to record or take pictures can request permission from the committee chair or the Supreme Court.

I base this comment on several factors:

• When one is the recipient of a complaint or formal charges, it does not seem as if due process will be served if the Respondent is denied the right to careful, complete press coverage or a copy of the proceedings for herself.

• I practice in closed court rooms almost exclusively, and many of my clients comment that there are factual determinations made contrary to the testimony presented. Unless one is willing to file a petition to the Supreme Court on grounds, and refer to a later-printed record, or go to the court to listen to the record, which is extremely time consuming, it's difficult to remember the exact testimony, motion, objections. I frequently have clients remind me of things said in court that I forgot. When checked against the record, I find my clients are usually correct, and if I've disagreed with them on memory, they are still usually correct.

• The final consideration is based on the First Amendment and public trust in the system. It is easy to justify a rule against cameras or recording devices when the fact-finder is a jury, and they are subject to being influence by media attention. At a time when the public is clamoring for increased accountability, this rule seems to undermine that public interest in the integrity of the system.

With respect to the Amendment to Proposed changes to court rules on lay representation, e.g. Appendix P., S, U. I would say that it is unnecessary.

With respect to the change to Rule 8.1 by adding paragraph # (c), I would also state that it is unnecessary. If a bar member is not present to rebut evidence, provided that there is no good excuse, such as appearance before another tribunal or absence from the state causing a short continuance, isn't the committee free to act on evidence before it to make a determination?

With respect to the proposed Rule change of 8.5, application of Rules to Non-lawyer representatives, I would add the following to the proposed rule change:

For violations of Rule 3.3, and 4.1, the judge SHALL conduct a hearing if violations of said rules are alleged, and SHALL revoke such representation upon a finding that the rules have been violated.

Note Rule 3.3 refers to candor towards the tribunal, and Rule 4.1 refers to truthfulness in statements to others.

Contact Paula Werme, Esq. or return to Law Practice home page.

Written 2001 August 5, last updated 2002 March 19.