Posted: August 4, 2026
Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice – Comment Period Closes September 18, 2026
SCRP01-501. Lawyer disciplinary and disability proceedings: purpose, authority, scope, and structure. Amend.
SCRP01-502. Definitions. Amend
SCRP01-503. Oversight Committee for the Office of Professional Conduct. Amend
SCRP01-510. Ethics and Discipline Committee composition. Amend
SCRP01-511. Screening panel composition; responsibilities. Amend
SCRP01-522. Ethics advisory opinions. Amend
SCRP01-523. OPC investigative subpoenas. Amend
SCRP01-530. Professional misconduct proceedings. Amend
SCRP01-531. Proceedings before Committee and screening panels. Amend
SCRP01-532. Exceptions to screening panel determinations and recommendations. Amend
SCRP01-535. Appealing a final Committee disposition to the Supreme Court. Amend
SCRP01-542. Additional rules of procedure. Amend
SCRP01-552. Diversion contract. Amend
SCRP01-553. Respondent’s participation in diversion. Amend
SCRP01-560. Grounds for discipline. Amend
SCRP01-561. Accessing disciplinary information. Amend
SCRP01-563. Interim discipline for threat of harm. Amend
SCRP01-567. Reciprocal discipline. Amend
SCRP01-570. Notice of disability or suspension; return of clients’ property; refund of unearned fees. Amend
SCRP01-580. Purpose and nature of sanctions. Amend
SCRP01-581. Sanctions. Amend
SCRP01-590. Reinstatement following a suspension of no more than six months or probation. Amend
SCRP01-591. Reinstatement following a suspension of more than six months; relicensure. Amend
SCRP01-531 – line 26 – typo on word “panel” – shows currently as “pabel”
I represented several clients who filed an ethics complaint against an attorney.
After OPC accepted the complaints and conducted their investigations and interviews, we were surprised to learn that OPC accepted the voluntary resignation of this attorney’s license.
How did we know this happened?
This former attorney had bragged on Facebook about his “settlement” with OPC.
OPC never informed the victims (the clients of the former attorney) that this individual had negotiated a resolution with OPC.OPC refused to share anything about the discussions surrounding the voluntary surrender of his law license even after multiple clients complained of this matter. Were it not for this former attorney’s Facebook post, none of the victims would have known about this.
Not only did they keep this matter in the dark from all of the victims, but they would not respond to any inquiries after I informed OPC about this individual’s post on Facebook.
It seems unfair to me that OPC will not communicate with the individuals who filed a complaint about the discipline process and keep them in the dark about any settlement discussions or if the attorney decides to get his license reinstated.
This experience left the clients feeling like OPC is not advocating or helping the victims of lawyers who violate the ethical rules for attorneys. They were upset that OPC intentionally withheld information from them and that their right to be informed of what is going on was not a priority. Furthermore, we all got the impression from communications from OPC that OPC owes no duties towards the victims.
We would like a new rule for OPC to keep the complainant/victims informed at all stages of the OPC investigation and disciplinary process and that they be informed regarding any settlement dicussions and that they be given input on those discussions.
If “licensed paralegal practitioners” is being removed because the definition of “Lawyer” was previously amended to include that term, then the term “Lawyer” should be replaced by “Legal Practictioner” or similar term to be more accurate and to avoid confusion.