Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Association, 20713.
| Decision Date | 09 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 20713.,20713. |
| Citation | 431 F.2d 1209 |
| Parties | James H. COOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION, the Grievance Committee of the Cincinnati Bar Association, the Supreme Court of Ohio, Thomas Startzman, Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Robert F. Ebinger, Esquire, Carlos A. Falkner, Esquire, Charles F. Atkinson, Esquire, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Paul W. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Thomas V. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for Supreme Court of Ohio and Thomas Startzman on motion to affirm.
John S. Wirthlin, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Cincinnati Bar Assn. and Grievance Committee of Cincinnati Bar Assn. on motion to affirm.
Robert F. Dreidame, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Bd. of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, Supreme Court of Ohio and Robert F. Ebinger, Carlos A. Faulkner and Charles F. Atkinson, on motion to affirm.
Vernon R. Brose, Otto F. Putnick, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant on motion in opposition to affirm.
Before WEICK, EDWARDS and BROOKS, Circuit Judges.
Coogan, who was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Ohio, filed suit in the District Court under the Civil Rights Act to enjoin the Supreme Court, the Clerk of the Court and its Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, and the Cincinnati Bar Association and its Grievance Committee, from enforcing the final judgment of suspension.
The District Judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Coogan appealed. The defendants-appellees have moved under our Rule 8 to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the questions presented are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio which approved the findings of fact and adopted the recommendations of its Board of Commissioners is reported in Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Coogan, 21 Ohio St.2d 147, 256 N.E.2d 218 (1970). The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio has since become final by reason of the fact that no petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by Coogan in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Coogan was represented by counsel of his own choosing in the hearings on the disbarment charges before the Board of Commissioners, but he did not personally appear before either the Board or the Supreme Court of Ohio. We are not advised whether he offered any evidence in defense of the charges. His counsel appears of record in the report of the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to. The affidavit of John S. Wirthlin, an attorney for the Cincinnati Bar Association, states that Coogan telephone him and "told him that he was not going to appear before the Supreme Court and that he would accept any recommendation of findings the Supreme Court entered."
It was the claim of Coogan in the District Court that he entered into an agreed suspension of practice for six months with the Cincinnati Bar Association and by reason thereof his suspension from practice by the Supreme Court constituted double jeopardy; that the Board of Commissioners erroneously admitted in evidence an affidavit of a Probate Court Referee, since deceased; and that Coogan was thereby deprived of his right of confrontation, all in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
It is significant that in the extensive findings of fact adopted by the Commissioners there is no mention of such an agreement which Coogan asserted in the District Court. It is stated therein only:
"It was reported that the Respondent was not actually practicing law, had no office and there was some possibility of an agreement for the voluntary suspension for a period of time."
There is no claim that the alleged agreement of suspension was offered in evidence in the hearing before the Commissioners and it is not mentioned in its findings. The Supreme Court of Ohio considered only the findings and recommendations of the Commissioners and the evidence before that Board. The Supreme Court in a five-page opinion detailed the facts of Coogan's unprofessional conduct, including his practicing a fraud on the Probate Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, in connection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
...was the Ohio law of preclusion. The opinion cites a Sixth Circuit opinion that purported to enunciate Ohio law, Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Assn, 431 F.2d 1209 (1970), and also relied on precedents from other federal Courts of Appeals applying both federal and state law. Our holding today make......
-
Allen v. Curry
...9. The cases noted in Preiser applied res judicata to issues decided both in state civil proceedings, e. g., Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Assn., 431 F.2d 1209, 1211 (CA6 1970), and state criminal proceedings, e. g., Goss v. Illinois, 312 F.2d 257, 259 (CA7 1963). 10.E. g., Robbins v. District C......
-
Javits v. Stevens
...v. Kelley, 349 F.Supp. 575, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). 15 See also, Roy v. Jones, 484 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1973); Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n, 431 F.2d 1209 (6th Cir. 1970); MacKay v. Nesbett, 412 F.2d 846 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 960, 90 S.Ct. 435, 24 L.Ed.2d 425 (1969), rehearing denie......
-
44 274 Ellis v. Dyson 8212 130
...(CA3), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846, 91 S.Ct. 93, 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); Shank v. Spruill, 406 F.2d 756 (CA5 1969); Coogan v. Cincinnati Bar Assn., 431 F.2d 1209 (CA6 1970); Williams v. Liberty, 461 F.2d 325 (CA7 1972); Jenson v. Olson, 353 F.2d 825 (CA8 1965); Scott v. California Supreme Cour......