After the Grievance Committee* informed Plaintiffs-Appellees that any resulting proceedings against twenty-one prosecutors would remain confidential, Plaintiffs-Appellees brought a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action contending that Section 90(10) of the New York Judiciary Law, which by default seals and mandates confidentiality of attorney grievance matters, violates their First Amendment right of access as applied to their complaints.
A federal District Court had ruled that a First Amendment presumption of access attaches to formal disciplinary hearings in the Second Department to records necessary to understand those hearings and to the final dispositions by the Grievance Committee. As Section 90(10) impermissibly interferes with that right, the District Court found the New York State statute to be unconstitutional as applied against Plaintiffs-Appellees’ complaints.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, [Second Circuit] explained that, despite the State’s contentions otherwise, Plaintiffs-Appellees’ claims are ripe and abstention, pursuant to O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974), is unwarranted.
The Second Circuit said that it concluded that the experience and logic test supports a qualified, presumptive First Amendment right of access to formal disciplinary hearings, including "all pertinent records, and select dispositions of the Grievance Committee".
The Second Circuit also held that New York State may not prohibit Plaintiffs-Appellees’ access to such proceedings and records pertaining to their complaints without making specific, on-the-record findings justifying confidentiality and affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
* Attorney Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts [“Grievance Committee”], which is one of three such committees for the Second Department.
Click HERE to access the Second Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.