Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Op-ed: Dropping Swallow complaints shows Bar needs retooling

By Russell C. Fericks and David R. Irvine

First Published Feb 22 2014 01:01 am • Last Updated Feb 22 2014 01:01 am

In Henry VI, a Shakespeare character famously says "First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers." This line is oft repeated in jest, but others argue that Shakespeare meant this as a compliment to lawyers who instill justice in society.

The practice of law in this country has masterfully remained a self-regulated profession. Although the supreme court of each state generally adopts a code of professional conduct, lawyers, as a whole, are subject to little other regulation over the practice of their profession. This self-regulation has survived precisely because lawyers have, in most instances, been extremely effective at monitoring their own and, thus, dissuading any efforts to regulate the profession from the outside.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

The profession’s self-regulation is generally conducted in each state by the state bar association. The Utah State Bar serves a two-pronged mission: To represent lawyers in the State of Utah and to serve the public and the legal profession by promoting justice, professional excellence, civility, ethics, respect for and understanding of the law. The Utah State Bar website home page has two prominent links entitled "To Serve the Public" and "To Serve the Profession."

As the uproar over former Attorney General John Swallow grew in early 2013, two different entities filed Bar complaints against Swallow. First, a wide-ranging complaint was filed by the good government group Alliance for a Better UTAH, and a second, more narrow complaint was filed by Traci Gunderson, former head of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection. The Bar dismissed both of these complaints, alleging a lack of persuasive evidence.

The Better UTAH complaint cited specific factual conduct, from media reports, of Swallow’s dealings with individuals and businesses that were or could be expected to be targets of state agencies, including the attorney general. Better UTAH, or any ordinary citizen, lacks the kinds of investigative powers entrusted to the Bar, and had requested that the Bar conduct an investigation to determine whether its Rules of Professional Conduct had been violated in any of those instances, and, if not, whether those Rules should be strengthened.

There have been three major investigations of Swallow’s conduct prior to and following his election as A.G. Two have been completed, and a criminal investigation is still underway. Where there have been allegations of smoke, investigators have repeatedly found fire. Swallow was found to have forged documents, erased digital information, failed to cooperate with investigators, offered protection to predatory lenders, and lied on his campaign financial disclosure forms.

The Bar’s failure to address Swallow’s conduct as an attorney suggests that it has focused its attention too prominently on the second half of its mission — serving the legal profession — to the detriment of its first half — serving the public.

We, respectfully, suggest that a re-calibration needs to occur in the Utah Bar’s perception of its responsibilities to the public.

While the specific issues surrounding Swallow may suggest that the Code of Professional Conduct should be amended, particularly with respect to attorneys running for state and county offices (where Bar membership is a prerequisite for holding office), it is also imperative that the Bar exercise its authority, when warranted, to, investigate the actions of its members who hold those very offices.

In the case of both complaints filed against Swallow, the Bar maintained that the complainants were responsible for conducting a thorough investigation of the matters alleged before the Bar would even consider acting , a standard too burdensome for ordinary citizens who lack investigative power. The Bar’s refusal to act on the two Swallow complaints is not a convincing demonstration of its ability and willingness to self-regulate. The legal profession in Utah, and the public it serves, deserve better.


story continues below
story continues below

Russell Fericks and David Irvine are Salt Lake City attorneys. Fericks has served on the Bar’s ethics and discipline screening panel and as co-chair of the ethics committee. Irvine is on Alliance for Better Utah’s board of directors.



Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.