it significantly interferes with the orderly conduct of
the Judicial Branch’s essential function of regulating
the practice of law.
In addressing the substantive concerns of the referee,
we note that our conclusion that the commission lacks
jurisdiction over claims of discrimination in the attorney
discipline process does not afford the Judicial Branch
carte blanche to engage in unlawful, discriminatory con-
duct under the guise of regulating the legal profession. A
decision of a standing committee remains subject to inde-
pendent review by the Superior Court, and, ultimately,
by the Appellate Court and this court, “on [the] record
to determine whether [the standing committee] has con-
ducted a fair and impartial investigation, and whether it
acted fairly and reasonably or [with] prejudice and ill will
in its consideration of the application [for reinstatement
to the bar].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State-
wide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, supra, 311 Conn.
451. This independent review accords with the ability
to seek redress from the Judicial Branch for discrimi-
nation in other types of judicial proceedings. See, e.g.,
Massameno v. Statewide Grievance Committee, supra,
234 Conn. 576 (“[W]e look at whether a prosecutor’s plea
bargaining or charging practice had a discriminatory
impact and, if so, whether the prosecutor was motivated
by a discriminatory purpose in charging the defendant.
. . . We also look at allegations that a prosecutor has
exercised his or her discretion to select jurors on the basis
of impermissible racial considerations.” (Citations omit-
ted.)). In short, the fact that the Office of Public Hearings
is not a forum of competent jurisdiction for challenging
the Judicial Branch’s regulation of the practice of law
does not dampen the potency of an individual’s rights
with respect to that branch of the government.
In sum, we conclude that the trial court properly sus-
tained the Judicial Branch’s administrative appeal from
the ruling of the commission’s referee.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.