Opinion: Alaska Bar Association’s grievance system protects the powerful at the expense of victims.

The Alaska Bar Association (ABA) has a grievance system in place that I believe protects those in power from consequences and silences victims of sexual harassment and fraud. This should concern all Alaskans, especially those in the legal community who believe that justice is an essential pillar of good government.

For those unfamiliar with the ABA, it exists to regulate the legal profession in Alaska. It provides professional development for its members, enforces rules of professional conduct, and provides access to free legal services to many poor Alaskans.

The ABA is not your typical professional organization. It is integral to Alaska’s legal system. It operates with relative autonomy to oversee ethical legal practice, and this autonomy means it must ensure that its regulation is in the public interest. To do.

Problems with the prosecution process are best explored through concrete examples, such as former Attorney General Kevin Clarkson, who resigned in disgrace after sending 558 text messages to lower-level state officials over the course of about a year. Let’s discuss a very public incident. Month. News reports found that these messages were often interjected with kissing face emojis and comments about the woman’s beauty.

If you have been the victim of similar workplace sexual harassment by a high-powered attorney, or if you have been treated unprofessionally, discriminated against, or deceived as a client of an attorney, file a complaint with the ABA. You can file a claim. And perhaps the victim in this case may have filed such a complaint, but Alaskans will never know. This is because bar association rules stipulate strict confidentiality regarding disciplinary procedures. Once a victim files a complaint, we cannot discuss the complaint or its progress. If they do so, they could be held in contempt of court.

This threat of contempt of court, a power not available to other professional organizations, effectively silences victims and complicates them without the assistance of their friends, family, community, or even their elected representatives in Congress. forcing people to survive a system that is difficult to navigate. It also prevents victims from speaking to the press about matters related to the charges, even if it is in the public interest.

Returning to the case of former Attorney General Kevin Clarkson, it is impossible to know whether a complaint has been filed by the victim. It is impossible to know if some complaints have been received and if this is likely an ongoing pattern of behavior. Even if a complaint is filed, it is impossible to know how the complaint was determined by the Law Society. Worse, if a complaint is mishandled or mishandled, the victim’s only option is to go to the ABA one last time and then never talk about it again.

All we know as members of the public is that Mr. Clarkson received no recommendation or even a slap on the wrist from the Alaska State Bar Association. He continues to practice law in Alaska without any repercussions for his actions, despite clear violations of his professional conduct rules. Was this even discussed at the Alaska Bar Association? This process is completely and unnecessarily opaque so the public doesn’t know.

The ABA’s Rules of Professional Conduct seem to say that with great power comes great responsibility. “Lawyers in public office have legal responsibilities that exceed those of other citizens. Abuse of public office by lawyers may indicate that they are failing in their professional role as lawyers. .”

Does increasing responsibility mean increasing responsibility when the public’s trust is betrayed?

Another of Dunleavy’s appointees, former Attorney General Ed Sniffen, was indicted by a grand jury on three counts of sexual abuse of a minor by an authority figure. His case was dismissed because it took too long to prosecute him for the 1991 crime. However, no such statute of limitations exists under the ABA’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

Have you ever filed a complaint? Was it denied? Do complaints still go through a lengthy vetting process? They remain hidden from the public unless the victim wishes to be charged with contempt of court.

Why would the Alaska Bar Association choose to be so secretive about its disciplinary proceedings if not to protect these powerful people from consequences?

One of the reasons for this strict confidentiality, it was explained to me, was to protect the reputation of those in the legal profession from frivolous complaints.

I think we’re probably a little too good at defending the honor of those in power. If the result is that victims are silenced and this process is hidden from the eyes of journalists and the public, then the scales seem to be out of balance. It certainly does not serve the public interest.

One last wiggle. Rules governing complaints about lawyers require confidentiality “before” formal proceedings begin. I was informed by the Alaska Bar Association that they interpret the phrase “before” to mean “unless.” This means that confidentiality will be maintained unless formal proceedings are initiated. eternally.

putt race He is a small business owner and a founding member of Alaska Robotics, a Juneau group that publishes short films, comics, and many other creative works.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a wide range of viewpoints.To submit your work for consideration, please send an email Commentary(at)adn.com. Submissions of less than 200 words should be sent to: [email protected] or Click here to submit from any web browser.Read all guidelines for letters and comments here.