In 2010, after more than a decade leading the Colorado attorney disciplinary function, John Gleason was tapped to serve as independent counsel in Arizona to investigate Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas, accused of using his office to target political enemies. Most such matters of this nature are handled by their own state disciplinary agencies, but the controversial nature of the case called for an outsider. Following a tumultuous two years during which Gleason and his colleagues received death threats and often had to change cars, hotels, and phones, the case resulted in the disbarment of two government attorneys, including Thomas, and the suspension of a third.
While the case made headlines, it was hardly the norm. Indeed, during his time as regulation counsel for the Colorado Supreme Court, Gleason spent more time on routine attorney discipline cases, including mishandled fees, drug and alcohol violations, and breaches that would never make the papers but often had real-world impacts on clients, the profession, and justice. In this story, we talk about how attorney discipline happens, as well as the trickle-down effects on the field and the public. To do so, we rely on a community of experts, such as those in charge of attorney discipline in Massachusetts and Mississippi, to illustrate the process. While Rebecca Haw Allensworth discusses what happens when “bad apples” are not excised from the profession in “The Fallen Professional,” this story seeks to illustrate exactly what it looks like when a misconduct complaint comes in and how officials weigh what happens next.
Protecting the public
“Those of us in the trade know this well: there’s a wide disparity among the states—a different culture and a different attitude—toward handling lawyer discipline,” says David Atkins, Irving S. Ribicoff Visiting Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School, who spent 35 years defending lawyers in disciplinary cases. Some states lean more punitive; others more rehabilitative, he says. As with bar licensing, states individually regulate the attorney disciplinary process, through either an office in the state courts, a bar association empowered through the courts, or some hybrid approach. States generally follow some variation of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct set forth by the American Bar Association, as well as the Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.
Most involved in the attorney discipline process agree that the overall project is about protecting the public. Atkins believes it’s also about “deterrence.” David Kluft, assistant bar counsel at the Massachusetts Office of Bar Counsel, emphasizes the goal of upholding the “integrity of the bar,” but in the past 50 years, this has also been described as “consumer protection.” Richard Abati, bar counsel at the same office, says, “We hope at the end of the day that we’re inspiring confidence in the profession, both from the public’s perspective but also [from] the lawyers themselves—so it’s a profession that they’re proud to be members of.”
“The purpose of the system is to protect the public from lawyer misconduct,” says Gleason. “That’s an easy phrase to say, but to actually do it is pretty complex.”
How attorney discipline works in practice
In Massachusetts, the administration of attorney discipline is housed in independent administrative bodies that are ultimately supervised by the state’s highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court: the Board of Bar Overseers (BBO) administers attorney discipline cases, the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) investigates and prosecutes the cases, and the Clients’ Security Board (CSB) reimburses clients in particular situations of attorney theft. Mississippi’s disciplinary counsel sits within the bar association, a system used by more than 20 states. Colorado’s sits within the Colorado Supreme Court, while New York’s is within the appellate court division.
In most states, the first step for complaints is an intake line. Massachusetts started their Attorney and Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) more than 25 years ago. In 2025 they processed 3,773 complaints, with about 5 percent being referred for formal investigation and possible discipline. In Mississippi, this intake line is the Consumer Assistance Program (CAP). CAP, established in 1994 by Glen Waddle, commonly helps complainants understand some of the opaque features of the legal system. “Sometimes clients just don’t understand what their lawyer is telling them, and Glen can talk them through the process,” says Melissa Scott, general counsel of the Mississippi Bar. In 2024–2025, the Bar received 516 complaints with 12 percent related to neglect and 23 precent related to communication issues.
When complaints make it through intake, most states contact the lawyer next to give them an opportunity to explain what happened and find a path forward. If it’s a relatively minor violation, they might offer diversion—like in Massachusetts—where the lawyer takes a CLE in lieu of any formal discipline.
The purpose of the system is to protect the public from lawyer misconduct. That’s an easy phrase to say, but to actually do it is pretty complex.
John Gleason, former regulation counsel, Colorado Supreme Court
If complaints rise to the level of investigation in Massachusetts and the OBC concludes that there is evidence of ethical misconduct meriting discipline, the OBC will formally file with the BBO. The BBO appoints a hearing committee of three members—two lawyers and one layperson—to act as a panel of judges. There’s a brief discovery period and a hearing with witnesses that is livestreamed to the public. Like many states, Massachusetts has a range of disciplinary options ranging from private to public. There are also opportunities for appeal at every stage.
In Mississippi, after the back-and-forth with the attorney about what happened, the Committee on Professional Responsibility will meet and decide what needs to be done about the potential violation. Some complaints require more robust discussion. “The ones that are real clear that this is a suspension-level case, those rarely get discussed because it’s just clear on its face what it is,” she says. The committee can either dismiss a complaint or issue an informal admonition, a private reprimand, or a public reprimand. If it rises to the level of suspension or disbarment, it becomes a more formal process. There will be a trial in front of a three-person tribunal composed of a judge and two lawyers appointed by Mississippi Supreme Court Justices. Like in Massachusetts, there are opportunities to appeal the decision—but doing so can take it from a private to a public hearing.
Learning from the data
“Obviously we have this prosecutorial function for ethical violations, but we also have a large educational component of what we do,” says Scott in Mississippi. Data helps them understand what disciplinary issues might be coming down the pipeline and what educational opportunities might be helpful in preventing misconduct. An uptick in misconduct coming from particular counties means Scott may spend more time providing professional responsibility training in particular parts of Mississippi. Likewise, when Scott began her position, she heard a common narrative that younger lawyers were committing more ethical violations and thus they needed a “new lawyer program.” “The data has never shown that, quite frankly,” she says. “The median age last year [for misconduct complaints] was around 50. It is midcareer lawyers that are really where the issues are.” At that age, you tend to be busier, she says, with more clients, more complex cases, more family responsibilities, more financial pressures, and perhaps more confidence in your skills.
I would rather teach every lawyer in this state how to properly keep their trust account than ever prosecute another trust account case.
Melissa Scott, general counsel, Mississippi Bar
Massachusetts likewise uses their data practices to curate their programming. In 2023 the OBC noticed an uptick in the number of closed files accompanied by warnings and resource referrals—for instance, a lawyer not returning their client’s phone calls would be referred to practice support management. Drawing on this data, they set up a new diversion program, which is not categorized as discipline and is available only to those with no prior record who commit low-level violations and who might benefit from further resources. “It’s basically a contract where we are telling them, ‘If you do X, Y, and Z, we’ll put this behind us,” says Kluft. “But we would never do that for something where a consumer was harmed,” he adds.
According to a 2023 paper by Leslie Levin and Susan Saab Fortnoy, 35 jurisdictions have diversion programs. The more successful programs, they argue, are tailored to the misconduct—for instance, if the issues were related to bookkeeping, a diversion program might require a CLE specifically on law firm management. In Massachusetts, when they noticed all of the closed files with warnings and referrals, “instead of just sending folks off with a letter that says, ‘Best of luck,’” Abati says, “we put them in touch with our new head of the diversion department, Inez Canada.” Canada, a lawyer with more than two decades of experience, meets with the individuals, then refers them to specific resources, making sure they have the right support to address the issue.
Cross-jurisdiction learning
In 2024 Scott served as the president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC), a group that brings regulatory counsel together from around the United States for cross-jurisdiction learning. In this role, Scott has been able to glean best practices from her peers.
For instance, drawing on other states’ programming, she envisioned setting up a “trust account school.” In the past year, 14 percent of violations in Mississippi were trust account related. “I would rather teach every lawyer in this state how to properly keep their trust account than ever prosecute another trust account case,” she says. The program has had the best response of any CLE they’ve done.
Scott would also like to draw on Arizona’s law practice management program—a preemptive audit to make sure lawyers are following best management practices. But the resources are not always there. “I don’t have enough staff to be able to do that in earnest, but Arizona has shared their resources, including the self-evaluation questionnaire,” she says. “That is something that I use now informally in programming. We go through the questionnaire and answer it together as a group anonymously.”
Massachusetts is also looking at other jurisdictions to see if they can widen their focus at the intersection of mental health and misconduct. For instance, they provide well-being resources, including referrals to the organization Lawyers for Concerned Lawyers, as well as more resources for those engaged in disciplinary proceedings, including their right to counsel, and how respondents might use malpractice insurance to pay for counsel or obtain a lawyer pro bono. Indeed, a study of California’s disciplinary system and disparities experienced by certain populations indicated that representation was critical: “Across more than 2,000 recent cases, representation lowered the overall likelihood of discipline and the severity of any sanction,” the study authors note.
The consequences
Discipline doesn’t just resolve individual cases or protect the public—it can also reshape the market for legal services and careers. In “Professional Discipline and the Labor Market,” Kyle Rozema finds that lawyers who receive discipline often end up moving out of law firm practice into solo or small-group practice with limited oversight; they also are more likely to end up working with clients who may know less about legal practice. A common critique of attorney discipline is that it disproportionately targets solo practitioners, but if disciplined lawyers migrate into less supervised settings with more vulnerable clients, the risk of harm can persist or even increase. Because complaints often involve neglect rather than headline-grabbing scandals, that dynamic helps explain why regulators have increasingly leaned into diversion, data, and education.
It is really rewarding when you can see that you’ve fulfilled your mission to protect the public—when you’ve identified an issue early and stopped the harm.
Melissa Scott
Other research hypothesizes that states with more robust professional policing provide better environments for business. Reviewing budget and the number of complaints per attorney population and caseloads per disciplinary prosecutor, researchers found that New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont have some of the stronger attorney disciplinary systems in the country. “Some of it is a function, like so many of these things, of budget,” Atkins says. “Budgeting reflects the priorities that different state judicial systems set forth. I don’t know which comes first, the budgeting or the attitude.” In the 2023 American Bar Association Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems (SOLD) (which not all states participate in), per-lawyer spending on discipline ranged from more than $400 in California and Hawaii to less than $100 in Ohio and South Dakota.
For the people who do this work, the stakes of getting the balance right amid what can be tight resourcing—between public protection and rehabilitation—are high. It is a far cry from the headline-grabbing cases like Gleason’s in Arizona or the more recent disbarments of Rudy Giuliani or John Eastman. Most disciplinary counsel spend time on quieter work, and the payoff comes when those systems function as intended. As Scott says: “It is really rewarding when you can see that you’ve fulfilled your mission to protect the public—when you’ve identified an issue early and stopped the harm.”
Image Credit: Shutterstuck // Lek in a Big World
