UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
v.
ABRAMS
Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
with whom Mr. Justice Powell joins,
dissenting.
The Court of Appeals has advanced the novel doctrine that when a federal court acts on a record made in state disciplinary proceedings the federal court’s power to discipline a member of its bar is circumscribed by the scope of the penalty imposed by the state courts. It has always seemed clear to me that the federal courts have plenary power over the admission, disbarment, or discipline of attorneys who practice before them. See Cheatham, The Reach of Federal Action Over the Profession of Law, 18 Stan.
L. Rev. 1288, 1291-1292 (1966).
The federal courts are not bound by the standards of professional conduct prescribed or enforced by the States any more than States are bound by federal action. A federal court may well determine that conduct found tolerable by another jurisdiction merits disbarment in federal court, as our actions disciplining members of this Court’s Bar implicitly demonstrate. See, e. g., In re Disbarment of Osborne, 420 U. S. 918 (1975); In re Disbarment of Buttles, 419 U. S. 1101 (1975); In re Disbarment of Mades, 414 U. S. 1154 (1974).
A federal court must apply state law in diversity cases, but there is not the slightest reason to do so in judging the conduct of members of its own bar. I do not share the view that this is a subject not warranting the time for full briefing and argument here. Granting that the burdens of our calendar do not permit full review of all we might desire, the issue here seems so clear that we could appropriately grant the writ and reverse the judgment summarily.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Miller, 624 F.2d 1198 (3d Cir. 1980)…the detriment to the public’s confidence in the integrity of the bar that might result from courts in the same state enforcing different ethical norms. See In re Abrams, 521 F. 2d 1094, 1106 (3d Cir.) (Rosenn, J., [*1201] concurring), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1038, 96 S.Ct. 574, 46 L.Ed.2d 413 (1975). III. Before considering the merits of this appeal, we must review the principles governing our scope of review. The district court’s power to disqualify an attorney derives from its inherent authority to super…1 / 2
-
In re Thalheim, 853 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1988)…are bound by their own disciplinary rules when proceeding against attorneys for violation of ethical standards. See United States v. Stoneberger, 805 F. 2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir.1986); Matter of Abrams, 521 F. 2d 1094, 1104-05 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1038, 96 S.Ct. 574, 46 L.Ed.2d 413 (1975). Rule V of the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, reads, in relevant part: (B) The Court shall appoint a standing committee of 42 members…
-
In re Julian J. Roberts Attorney-at-Law. Appeal of Julian J. Roberts, 682 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1982)…oration, 508 F. 2d 152, 163 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 832, 96 S.Ct. 54, 46 L.Ed.2d 50 (1975), authorize federal courts to set criteria for admission of attorneys. Matter of Abrams, 521 F. 2d 1094, 1099 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1038, 96 S.Ct. 574, 46 L.Ed.2d 413 (1975). This rulemaking power may be exercised independently and separately from admission rules in other federal courts. See id., at 1101; Application of Wasserman, 240 F. 2d 213, 214 (9th Cir. 1956). The district cour…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 420 U.S. 918 (U.S. 1975)
- In re Disbarment of Osborne, 420 U.S. 918 (U.S. 1975)
- Huntsville Bd. of Educ. v. Hereford, 419 U.S. 1101 (U.S. 1975)
- In re Disbarment of Buttles, 419 U.S. 1101 (U.S. 1975)
- In re Disbarment of Mades, 414 U.S. 1154 (U.S. 1974)
- Vela v. Vowell, 414 U.S. 1154 (U.S. 1974)