Collateral estoppel as the method to eliminate civil rights attorneys in New York

New York is a unique state.


It is one of the miniscule minority of cases which still gives its attorneys the least protection in disciplinary proceedings - disciplinary authorities only have to prove their case "by preponderance of the evidence".


Why?


Because courts want to clear their dockets, in other words, to do less, and do not want to confess that clearing their dockets is the true reason behind depriving attorneys of hearings in disciplinary proceedings.


How it works.


A civil court makes a decision that an attorney allegedly did something wrong. The decision is made
"by preponderance of the evidence".


If to discipline an attorney, a higher standard of proof is required (as in other states), then an attorney is entitled to a hearing.


Not in New York.


In New York the disciplinary court can simply rubber-stamp, without any further hearings, that if the lower court decided this way - right or wrong - the attorney must be disciplined.


But - wait a minute - attorney discipline exists to protect the public from attorney misconduct, isn't it correct?


And, if the lower court's decision is wrong, there is nothing to protect the public from, isn't it correct?


And, there is a dire shortage of attorneys who are willing to take cases for the poor, underprivileged and unpopular clients, as well as unpopular causes, isn't it correct?


And, attorney disciplinary bodies predominantly target solo attorneys engaged in protection of civil rights, isn't it correct?


So - when disciplinary courts deny civil rights attorneys a hearing before taking their licenses, reputations and livelihoods, they do not care whether attorneys did, in fact, commit any wrongs, and whether the public, indeed, needs protection, isn't it correct?


So, all these statements about attorney licensing and attorney discipline protecting the public is a lie to appease the public and conceal the true picture that courts are actually specifically depriving the public of their best chance of representation by suspending and disbarring, without hearings, civil rights attorneys, on pretextual grounds, isn't it correct?