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

Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems 2004



Introduction to 2004 S.O.L.D. Results

The ABA Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems questionnaire for 2004 was sent to 56 lawyer disciplinary agencies. All 56 agencies responded to the questionnaire. Medians and averages of various categories are shown where potentially meaningful. In most instances, averages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

The 2004 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. Please contact the specific jurisdiction if you have further inquiries. For information regarding how to contact the jurisdictions, please consult the ABA Directory of Lawyer Disciplinary Agencies.

The following jurisdictions indicated they have fiscal years rather than calendar years: Alabama, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York 2nd Jud. Dept. 9th District, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

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].

2004 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

2004 American Bar Association
Standing Committee on Professional Discipline

Hon. Barbara Kerr Howe
Towson, MD

Hon. Shirley S. Abrahamson
Madison, WI

Betty Smith Adams
Ellicott City, MD

David S. Baker
Atlanta, GA

Anthony L. Butler
Seattle, WA

Gerald M. Eisenstat
Vineland, NJ

Hon. Larry Ramirez
Las Cruces, NM

Arnold R. Rosenfeld
Boston, MA

William P. Smith, III
Atlanta, GA


Board of Governors
Harry S. Hardin, III
New Orleans, LA

National Organization of Bar Counsel
G. Fred Ours
Baton Rouge, LA

American Bar Association
Center for Professional Responsibility

Jeanne P. Gray

Mary M. Devlin
Regulation Counsel

Ellyn S. Rosen
Associate Regulation Counsel

Susan E. Dianovsky
Regulation Paralegal