chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
March 08, 2021

Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems 2001



Introduction to 2001 S.O.L.D. Results

The ABA Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems questionnaire for 2001 was sent to 55 lawyer disciplinary agencies. Kentucky and South Dakota did not respond to the 2001 Survey. Medians and averages of various categories are shown where potentially meaningful. In most instances, averages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

The Survey consists of eight charts arranged alphabetically by jurisdiction, with footnotes if clarification of data is necessary. In some instances exact figures were not available. Therefore, approximate figures were provided. The abbreviation "N/A" means that the data was not available or applicable. These charts were compiled from statistics reported to the ABA by the various jurisdictions.

The following jurisdictions indicated they have fiscal years rather than calendar years: Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New York 2nd Jud. Dept. 9th District, New York 3rd Jud. Dept., North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Questions regarding the Survey should be addressed to Ellyn S. Rosen, Associate Regulation Counsel, ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-7598, (312) 988-5311, [email protected].

2001 S.O.L.D. Survey Results

The information contained in the Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems is not intended to constitute a comprehensive overview of each jurisdiction's lawyer discipline system, but is a snapshot of data. Where possible, footnotes have been included to address variations in the manner in which jurisdictions operate and maintain statistics. If you have any questions regarding a particular jurisdiction's responses to the Survey, please contact the chief disciplinary counsel for that agency. Click here for contact information for lawyer disciplinary agencies.
Chart I Lawyer Population and Agency Caseload Volume
Chart II Sanctions Imposed
Chart III Reinstatement and Readmission Statistics
Chart IV Disciplinary Agency Caseload Statistics
Chart V Case Processing Time Guidelines
Chart VI Budget Information and Sources of Funding
Chart VII Allocation of Dues and Fees in State Disciplinary Systems
Chart VIII Staffing of Disciplinary Agencies


ABA S.O.L.D. Surveys

2003 Survey

2002 Survey

2001 Survey

2000 Survey

1999 Survey

1998 Survey

2001 American Bar Association
Standing Committee on Professional Discipline

Hon. Barbara Kerr Howe
Towson, MD

Hon. Shirley S. Abrahamson
Madison, WI

Mary C. Daly
New York, NY

Robert L. Ostertag
Poughkeepsie, NY

Manuel San Juan
San Juan, PR

William I. Weston
Davie, FL

Gerald M. Eisenstat
Vineland, NJ

Virginia L. Ferrara
Albuquerque, NM

Kimberlee K. Kovach
Austin, TX


Board of Governors
Paula J. Frederick
Atlanta, GA

National Organization of Bar Counsel
Barbara L. Margolis
Providence, RI

American Bar Association
Center for Professional Responsibility

Jeanne P. Gray

Mary M. Devlin
Regulation Counsel

Ellyn S. Rosen
Associate Regulation Counsel