RULE 9.

REVIEW OF COMMISSION DECISION.


(a) A judge who has received from the commission a sanction in connection with a complaint filed subsequent to Sept. 1, 1987, may file with the chief justice of the supreme court a written request for appointment of a special court of review, not later than the 30th day after the date on which the commission issued its sanction.

(b) Within 15 days after appointment of the special court of review, the commission shall furnish the petitioner and each justice on the special court of review a charging document which shall include a copy of the sanction issued as well as any additional charges to be considered in the de novo proceeding and the papers, documents, records, and evidence upon which the commission based its decision. The sanction and other records filed with the special court of review are public information upon filing with the court.

(c) Within 30 days after the date upon which the commission files the charging document and related materials with the special court of review, the special court of review shall conduct a hearing. The procedure for the hearing shall be governed by the rules of law, evidence, and procedure that apply to civil actions, except the judge is not entitled to trial by jury, and the special court of review's decision shall not be appealable. The hearing shall beheld at a location determined by the special court of review, and shall be public.

(d) Decision by the special court of review may include dismissal, affirmation of the commission's decision, imposition of a lesser or greater sanction, or order to the commission to file formal proceedings.

(e) The opinion by the special court of review shall be published if, in the judgment of a majority of the justices participating in the decision, it is one that (1) establishes a new rule of ethics or law, alters or modifies an existing rule, or applies an existing rule to a novel fact situation likely to recur in future cases; (2) involves a legal or ethical issue of continuing public interest; (3) criticizes existing legal or ethical principles; or (4) resolves an apparent conflict of authority. A concurring or dissenting opinion may be published if, in the judgment of its author, it meets one of the above indicated criteria, but in such event the majority opinion shall be published as well.