On the contrary, I believe the existence of and ease of disbarring works as a substitute for prosecution, albeit under different terms of "law" and "justice-- if you can call it that.

At the same time, the very existence of disbarring without the due process required for convictions, also means, the "good ones" wouldn't risk it by speaking up and demanding "prosecution" of their peers.

I see what you're saying, and... maybe? I do think we need to pick apart two questions that I don't think I kept clear. On the one hand, "given the rules we have, how much can we infer bad behavior of decision-makers in that system because someone is disbarred for a crime they are not charged with"; this is more of what I had in mind, and I think I stand by my position of "based on the rules we should expect to see that when the system is performing nominally, though it's not a bad idea to look closer." On the other hand, there is the question of whether these rules are appropriate. I think philosophically there is something to say for "we should disqualify people from positions of trust faster than we should jail them", but that doesn't rule out the possibility that the system is abused in the ways you describe. The practical probably should win out over the philosophical, here, but I don't have the information myself to weigh in.

> "we should disqualify people from positions of trust faster than we should jail them"

Sure, but the revoking of license can be codified into the law, essentially, the same "disqualification" but under the same framework of law as for any other crime and punishment, most of it anyways.

I don't think I have a problem with that, although I would have to see the specific proposal, talk to people, and think deeper before I would wave my magic wand to make it happen.