This article examines the problem of lawyer discipline through the prism of Ohio's disciplinary system. Ohio is a bellwether state for the nation concerning a variety of issues and has one of the largest state bar associations in the country. By focusing on Ohio's problems and its recent struggle to reform its disciplinary system, other states may avoid some of Ohio's failures and replicate its successes. The issues and problems relating to lawyer discipline in Ohio are not unique. The Ohio experience generally reflects a national reluctance on the part of the legal profession to initiate necessary reforms that are in the public's interest. For example, Ohio's disciplinary process is secret until there is a finding of probable cause that misconduct occurred. At least thirty other states have similar, or more restrictive, rules shielding the disciplinary process from public review.

Part II of this article discusses an article by Professor Jack Guttenberg, published in the University of Cincinnati Law Review in 1994. In that article, Guttenberg revealed what many lawyers and academics already believed-Ohio's disciplinary system needed substantial and immediate repair. He identified specific problems ranging from inadequate resources and inconsistent procedures to secrecy and favoritism.

Part III of this article describes the Ohio State Bar Association's (OSBA's) response to Guttenberg's article-establishment of the Committee to Review Ohio's Disciplinary Process, otherwise known as the Bell Committee. The Bell Committee conducted a comprehensive review of Ohio's disciplinary system.

Part IV of this article briefly outlines the OSBA's actions concerning the Bell Committee's recommendations to reform the disciplinary system. Most of the Bell Committee's recommendations were adopted by the OSBA and referred to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted many of the OSBA's recommendations and proposed amendments to the rules governing the bar consistent with those recommendations. However, the OSBA and the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately chipped away at key reforms suggested by Guttenberg and, to a lesser extent, by the Bell Committee.

Most of the OSBA's recommendations and the court's amendments marginally improve the lawyer disciplinary regime. They fail however, to sufficiently protect the public's interest in disciplining and removing miscreant lawyers. Part V examines major flaws in both the OSBA and the state supreme court's actions addressing longstanding problems with the state's lawyer disciplinary system. Part V also examines some of the professional and economic reasons for these flaws and highlights the risk they pose to public welfare. Part V then proposes several alternatives to Ohio's recently modified disciplinary system. The principal proposals call for creating a single, centralized disciplinary regime and opening the disciplinary process to public review upon the filing of a grievance. Other alternatives include increasing public participation in lawyer discipline; standardizing the procedural rules for discipline; developing an expedited process to deal with minor misconduct; reinstating the colorable grievance rule; requiring written retention agreements when the fee exceeds $1,000; and establishing a policy of mandatory malpractice insurance. These alternatives better serve both the public's and the profession's interests in disciplining miscreant lawyers and promoting the fair and efficient administration of justice.

The article concludes in Part VI by suggesting that consumer dissatisfaction with the delivery of legal services will increase unless the Ohio Supreme Court corrects weaknesses in the lawyer disciplinary system, especially the problems involving the state's dual disciplinary process and policy of secrecy. Given the Ohio Supreme Court's reluctance to adopt necessary reforms, the conclusion also contends that the public will have to help spearhead efforts to reform the lawyer disciplinary system.