You can
search the entire site.
or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices.
Anderson v. Alaska Bar Association (05/14/2004) sp-5806
Anderson v. Alaska Bar Association (05/14/2004) sp-5806
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878,
e-mail corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
JOHN A. ANDERSON, )
) Supreme Court No. S-11215
Appellant, )
) Superior Court No.
v. ) 3AN-03-09551 CI
)
ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION, ) O P I N I O N
)
Appellee. ) [No. 5806 - May 14, 2004]
)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, Third Judicial District,
Anchorage, Morgan Christen, Judge.
Appearances: John A. Anderson, pro se,
Anchorage. Mark Woelber, Assistant Bar
Counsel, Alaska Bar Association, Anchorage,
for Appellee.
Before: Bryner, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, Fabe, and Carpeneti, Justices.
PER CURIAM
Anderson filed a grievance with the Alaska Bar
Association alleging various instances of attorney misconduct.
After taking preliminary steps, Bar Counsel decided that a formal
investigation was not warranted and so notified Anderson. When
Anderson sought reconsideration, Bar Counsel forwarded the file
to Board Discipline Liaison to review. Board Discipline Liaison
concurred in Bar Counsel's decision not to open an investigation.
Each of the above steps was authorized and taken
pursuant to Bar Rule 22(a). What Anderson did next is not
covered by any rule. He filed a "Notice of Appeal from
Administrative Agency" with the superior court, seeking review of
the decision not to open a formal investigation of the grievance
that he had filed. On motion of the Bar Association the superior
court dismissed the appeal. Anderson then appealed to this
court, urging that we review the Bar Association's decision not
to accept the grievance for investigation.
In an order dated February 24, 2004, we affirmed the
order of the superior court on the ground that the superior court
lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Alaska Bar
Association concerning lawyer disciplinary matters. But we also
concluded that grievance-closing decisions under Bar Rule 22(a)
may, upon timely request of a complainant, be reviewed by this
court. We based this conclusion on the presumption of
reviewability pertaining to all final administrative orders, and
the inherent authority of this court to regulate the practice of
law. We called for further briefing on the question whether Bar
Counsel abused his discretion in determining that the allegations
contained in the grievance did not warrant an investigation.1
The additional briefing is now complete. Based on our
review of the parties' arguments and the record, we conclude that
Bar Counsel did not abuse his discretion in declining to accept
the grievance for investigation. This proceeding is therefore
DISMISSED.
In the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska
John A. Anderson, )
) Supreme Court No. S_11215
Appellant, )
v. ) Order
)
Alaska Bar Association, )
)
Appellee. ) Date of
Order: 02/24/04
)
Trial Court Case # 3AN_03_09551CI
Before: Bryner, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, Fabe, and Carpeneti, Justices.
1. The order of the superior court of August 23, 2003,
dismissing this case is AFFIRMED because the superior court lacks
jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Alaska Bar Association
concerning lawyer disciplinary matters.
2. Although the Bar Rules do not provide for supreme court
review of decisions of the board discipline liaison when the
liaison affirms the decision of bar counsel not to accept a
grievance for investigation under Bar Rule 22(a), such review is
appropriate. All final administrative actions are presumed to be
reviewable. State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Meyer, 906 P.2d 1365,
1370 (Alaska 1995). A case-closing decision rejecting a
grievance for investigation is a final administrative action by
the Alaska Bar Association. See id. at 1370-72. As an adjunct
of the judicial power vested in it by article IV, section 1 of
the Alaska Constitution, this court has the inherent authority to
regulate the practice of law which encompasses the power to
discipline members of the Alaska Bar Association. Citizens
Coalition for Tort Reform, Inc. v. McAlpine, 810 P.2d 162, 165
(Alaska 1991).
3. In light of the presumption of reviewability and the
court's inherent authority, we conclude that grievance-closing
decisions under Bar Rule 22(a) may, upon timely request of a
complainant, be reviewed by this court. The standard of review
should be deferential, namely, whether bar counsel abused his or
her discretion in determining that the allegations contained in
the grievance do not warrant an investigation. See Vick v. Board
of Electrical Examiners, 626 P.2d 90, 93 (Alaska 1981).
4. Appellant describes the substance of his grievance in
his opening brief filed November 3, 2003. On or before March 25,
2004, the Alaska Bar Association shall file a brief in support of
bar counsel's decision not to accept the grievance for
investigation and the affirmance of that decision by board
discipline liaison. If deemed necessary, the bar association may
submit a confidential disciplinary file as an appeal record.
5. The appellant shall have twenty days after receipt of
the bar association's brief within which to file a reply brief.
Entered at the direction of the full court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
/s/ Marilyn May
_______________________________
1The order of February 24, 2004, is appended to this opinion.
