Click for printable version
Click to send to a friend

Saturday, March 23, 2002
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Women can now publicize complaint against attorney

Two had filed federal lawsuit challenging rule

Two women now have the right to publicize an ethics complaint they lodged in April 2000 against a Las Vegas attorney.

Teri Bedford and Lois Matthews filed a federal lawsuit last month in which they challenged the constitutionality of a Nevada Supreme Court rule that prohibited them from publicly discussing the complaint.

The matter was resolved recently when the State Bar of Nevada decided to reinterpret the rule.

"On behalf of my clients, I'm pleased that the State Bar has recognized that their interpretation and application of the Supreme Court rule was erroneous and that they had the courage to admit, after taking a second look at the matter, that they were wrong," said attorney Don Campbell, who represents Bedford and Matthews.

The two women filed their lawsuit against the State Bar and the Supreme Court. The parties stipulated to the dismissal of the lawsuit after the bar agreed to reinterpret Rule 121, the rule that barred the women from discussing their ethics complaint.

"All citizens now who bring a bar complaint will be able to talk about it, and that's important to me," Bedford said.

Bedford and Matthews claimed Rule 121 violated their First Amendment right of free speech.

According to the rule, proceedings involving allegations of attorney misconduct "shall be kept confidential until the filing of a formal complaint."

Bedford and Matthews sent a grievance letter to the State Bar in April 2000 that accused attorney Randall Mainor of engaging in unethical behavior, but the women's grievance did not result in the filing of a formal complaint.

After receiving further information from all the parties, a screening panel reviewed the matter. The panel concluded that Mainor had violated a rule regarding conflict of interest and that he should receive a private reprimand.

Mainor objected to the proposed reprimand and requested an informal hearing. The hearing was in February 2001, and the hearing panel dismissed the matter after concluding that Mainor had not engaged in misconduct.

Because of the panel's finding, no formal complaint was filed, and Mainor was not disciplined.

According to the federal lawsuit filed by Bedford and Matthews, bar personnel informed the women that Rule 121 forever prohibited them from publicly discussing the matter. The personnel also warned the women that they could be fined or imprisoned for violating the rule, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit sought an injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the rule and a declaration that the rule is unconstitutional.

According to the stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit, Supreme Court Rule 121 indicates how proceedings become public upon the filing of a formal complaint but "is silent when no formal complaint has been filed."

"State Bar of Nevada hereby interprets SCR 121 to allow for informal screening hearings to become public or no longer be confidential at the conclusion of those proceedings," the stipulation states.

The stipulation resolves the case without a determination regarding the rule's constitutionality. Bill Maupin, the Supreme Court's chief justice, said he views the stipulation as a good conclusion of the case.

Bar counsel Rob Bare could not be reached for comment.

Mainor said he disagrees with the new interpretation of Rule 121.

"When there is no merit to a claim, it's unfair for allegations to be made that defame or demean a lawyer or any professional," he said.