Finally, the Attorney General suggests that the reasoning in
Petition of Brooks is questionable because, in relying on
Landmark Communications, the New Hampshire Supreme Court analogized attorneys to judges. The Attorney General contends that, unlike judges who are elected for eight-year terms, attorneys must be protected from public disclosure of frivolous complaints because their livelihood depends on their reputation. Although the court in
Petition of Brooks recognized that attorneys are not public officials in the sense that judges are, it concluded that “the fundamental importance of the first amendment, combined with the role of attorneys as officers of the court, compels the application of similar principles of free expression to the reputational interests of attorneys, at least with respect to the issues in this case.”
678 A.2d at 144–45. We note also that in
Butterworth the United States Supreme Court applied the principles of
Landmark Communications to the reputational interests of persons targeted by the grand jury without regard to whether they were public officials or private citizens. Therefore, contrary to the Attorney General's assertion, the reasoning in
Petition of Brooks is sound.