"In the Best Interest of the Public and of the Profession": Comparing Professional Disciplinary Reactions to American Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Who Misappropriated Client Funds
The American legal profession has a monopoly over its membership, including full control over the process of professional discipline for attorneys. State bar organizations are the ones who oversee the discipline process and have authority to design the structure as they see fit. This means attorneys...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis de maestría |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad del País Vasco |
| Repositorio: | Addi. Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:addi.ehu.eus:10810/74891 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10810/74891 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | discipline legal professions professional regulation monopolies Neo-Weberianism |
| Sumario: | The American legal profession has a monopoly over its membership, including full control over the process of professional discipline for attorneys. State bar organizations are the ones who oversee the discipline process and have authority to design the structure as they see fit. This means attorneys who are accused of the same misconduct in different states can be subject to different disciplinary procedures. This project examines three cases of plaintiffs’ lawyers from three different states who misappropriated client settlement funds, a serious violation of professional misconduct, and faced their state’s professional discipline process as a result. Comparing these cases reveals common structural similarities and goals across different discipline structures, as well as highlighting weaknesses and areas for improvement in the process overall. |
|---|