Bernard Selling v. George Radford, No. 21

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWhite
Citation37 S.Ct. 377,243 U.S. 46,61 L.Ed. 585
Decision Date06 March 1917
Docket NumberO,No. 21
PartiesBERNARD B. SELLING, Otto Kirchner, Henry M. Campbell, Clarence A. Lightner, and Sidney T. Miller, a Special Committee Appointed by the Association of the Bar of the City of Detroit, Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. RADFORD. riginal

243 U.S. 46
37 S.Ct. 377
61 L.Ed. 585
BERNARD B. SELLING, Otto Kirchner, Henry M. Campbell, Clarence A. Lightner, and Sidney T. Miller, a Special Committee Appointed by the Association of the Bar of the City of Detroit, Petitioners,

v.

GEORGE W. RADFORD.

No. 21, Original.
Submitted November 20, 1916.
Decided March 6, 1917.

Page 47

Solicitor General Davis for petitioner.

Messrs. Thomas A. E. Weadock and Harrison Geer for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

George W. Radford was admitted to practice in the supreme court of the state of Michigan on the 15th day of June, 1876, About ten years thereafter, on March 18, 1886, upon the representation that he had been for the three years preceding, a member of the Bar of the highest court of the state of Michigan, and upon the further assurance, both conformably with rule 2 of this court, that his private and professional character appeared to be fair, he was permitted to become a member of the Bar of this court.

Represented by the Solicitor General of the United States, the petitioners, as a committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of Detroit, specially appointed for that purpose, seek to procure an order striking Radford from the roll of the members of the Bar of this court on the ground of his personal unworthiness to continue as a member of such Bar. And, in coming to consider their request, we unselfishly understand their sense of pain at being called on to discharge the duty which they perform. The original petition filed for that purpose alleged that in a suit brought in a designated court of original jurisdiction in Michigan for the purpose of disbarring Radford for professional misconduct amounting to moral wrong, he had, after notice and full hearing, been found to have committed the wrongful acts complained of, and had been disbarred, and that such judgment had been approved by

Page 48

the supreme court of Michigan in a proceeding by certiorari taken to consider the same. Annexed to the petition was a copy of the opinion and order of disbarment entered by the court of original jurisdiction, as well as a copy of the opinion and order of the supreme court of the state in the certiorari proceeding, the same being reported in 168 Mich. 474, 134 N. W. 472.

It was alleged in the petition that, notwithstanding the fact that Radford had, by the final action of the supreme court of the state of Michigan, been stricken from the rolls of the courts in that state for the reasons previously stated, he had continued in the city of Detroit to hold himself out as a practising lawyer entitled to respect and confidence as such because of the fact that he continued to be a member of the Bar of this court, unaffected by the order of disbarment by the courts of the state. After reciting the unseemly condition produced by these circumstances and the disrespect for the state courts which was naturally implied, the prayer was for a rule to show cause and for the awarding, on the return to such rule, of the order of disbarment which was sought.

An answer was made to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
244 practice notes
  • Practice and procedure: Patent and trademark cases rules of practice; representation of others before Patent and Trademark Office,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...the attorney from practice before the Office, 5 U.S.C. 500(d)(2), after notice and opportunity for a hearing. See Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 The phrase ``full disclosure'' is used to define the explanation a practitioner must give a client regarding potential and actual conflicts of in......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...the attorney from practice before the Office, 5 U.S.C. 500(d)(2), after notice and opportunity for a hearing. See Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 The phrase ``full disclosure'' is used to define the explanation a practitioner must give a client regarding potential and actual conflicts of in......
  • Keenan v. Board of Law Examiners of State of NC, Civ. No. 2554.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • October 2, 1970
    ...in review of the Louisiana judgment." Theard is simply the most recent moderate pronouncement of the flatter rule of Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917) that "we have no authority to reexamine or reverse, as a reviewing court, the action of the Supreme Court o......
  • Flanagan, In re, No. 15419
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 18, 1997
    ...to be heard was wanting in due process.' " In re Ruffalo, supra, 390 U.S. at 550, 88 S.Ct. at 1226, quoting Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 379, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). The court concluded that, because attorney discipline proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, an attorne......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
241 cases
  • Keenan v. Board of Law Examiners of State of NC, Civ. No. 2554.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • October 2, 1970
    ...in review of the Louisiana judgment." Theard is simply the most recent moderate pronouncement of the flatter rule of Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917) that "we have no authority to reexamine or reverse, as a reviewing court, the action of the Supreme Court o......
  • Flanagan, In re, No. 15419
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 18, 1997
    ...to be heard was wanting in due process.' " In re Ruffalo, supra, 390 U.S. at 550, 88 S.Ct. at 1226, quoting Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 379, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). The court concluded that, because attorney discipline proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, an attorne......
  • Matter of Doe, No. CIV-90-1020-JB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • August 4, 1992
    ...106 N.M. 334, 742 P.2d 1039 (1987); In re Braverman, 549 F.2d 913, 921 (4th Cir.1976); In re Abrams, 521 F.2d at 1105; Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 13 See also, Lidge III, supra at 622. 14 The predecessor to DR 7-104(A)(1), Canon 9 of the ABA Canons of Profess......
  • Attorney Grievance Commission v. Weiss, Misc. Docket AG No. 15
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • November 22, 2005
    ...foreign jurisdiction, our focus on the due process protections afforded the attorney must never waiver. See generally Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). An attorney who is the subject of a disciplinary complaint is entitled to fundamental due process pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT