Arbitration sometimes includes subpoenas for discovery purposes. Might that help explain the subpoena powers apparently accorded by the Utah Rules? No. Third party discovery in an arbitration is grounded in statute, either the FAA or state equivalents. The Federal Arbitration Act provides the arbitrator(s) the power to order witnesses and document to appear for the hearing. 9 U.S.C. §7. Some federal courts interpret that provision to allow for subpoenas in discovery, and some do not. CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 708 (9th Cir. 2017). The split is not important here, what is important is that the split is in interpreting the statute: discovery subpoenas are possible (to the extent they are possible) in arbitration because of a statutory provision. There is no statutory provision for subpoenas in the lawyer disciplinary process.
The Judiciary and Judicial Administration Act (Title 78A) provides that the Supreme Court may issue rules governing "the conduct and discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law." But what is at issue is not conduct and discipline but discovery in an informal proceeding from a third party. That is not a power inherent in control of the discipline of attorneys.
There is a judicial entity outside the courts that has some subpoena powers: the Judicial Council. But the subpoena power are statutory. So, still no grounds for the subpoena power.
Recent Comments