I have significant objections to the questions to Examiners that were tacked on to the end of the Practitioners questionnaire at the 11th hour.  Apologies for not focusing on this before now.  I don't believe these have really been properly reviewed or discussed.

I believe these questions are inappropriate in a poll of practitioners, as these are questions directed to "panelists."   (The proper term is Examiner....) It feels like a "bait and switch" tactic.  If we are going to survey Examiners, let's survey Examiners -- not ambush practitioners.  On that basis alone, we should eliminate these questions.

I am also troubled by the questions themselves.  Singling out these questions, out of all that we might ask Examiners, seems vaguely accusatory.   

The basis for these questions is questionable.  I've reviewed the URS Procedures and Rules, and none of these questions comes out of a Procedure or Rule.  The Examiners are supposed to declare conflicts of interest, but there is no instruction on how to implement that.  As such, there is no requirement that an Examiner undertake any type of conflicts check much less something as specific as "a law firm-wide conflicts check to verify that neither you nor your law firm has any actual or potentially adverse conflict of interest to the complainant and/or respondent."  Asking the question implies that this is an imperative when it is not.

On top of that, this verbiage does not accurately describe a conflict check.  What is a "potentially adverse conflict of interest"? Why is it only asking about adverse conflicts?  I note that the Forum does have a Supplementary Rule that "A Examiner will be disqualified if circumstances exist that create a conflict of interest or cause the Examiner to be unfair and biased, including but not limited to ...  The Examiner has served as an attorney to any party or the Examiner has been associated with an attorney who has represented a party during that association."  This does not ask the Examiner to run a conflict check, but notably, the issue it raises is the exact opposite of the issue implied in these proposed questions -- the Forum is highlighting representing a party, not being adverse (much less "potentially adverse) to a party.

Now, I'm not saying it's a bad idea for an Examiner to run a (properly defined) conflict check, but the very fact that we are debating Examiner actions and requirements in a practitioners poll should tell us we're in the wrong place.

For that reason, I will not discuss the problems in the follow-up questions on conflict checks.

The final question is even worse. ("Have you ever communicated with a third party regarding an ongoing URS dispute in which you were a panelist?')  As far as I know, this is not prohibited behavior, especially not this broadly described.  It seems designed to make people feel like they might have done something wrong.  (If this is expressly prohibited by the Rules or Procedures, then perhaps we could fashion a question out of that Rule/Procedure if we were putting together a poll for Examiners.)  Is it improper to "communicate" with your spouse about a URS case?  With one of your law partners? With a fellow Examiner?

Long story short, these questions should be deleted.

Greg