Evans, In re, 86-9504
| Decision Date | 23 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-9504,86-9504 |
| Citation | 834 F.2d 90 |
| Parties | In re Paul G. EVANS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Before the Court for consideration is an original proceeding to determine whether Paul G. Evans should be disbarred from practice in this Court. On March 10, 1986, this Court issued an order to Evans, pursuant to Local Rule 46.6(a)(2), to show cause why his disbarment by the Maryland District Court should not result in similar action by this Court. The matter was placed in abeyance pending disposition of Evans' appeal of the district court disbarment order. This Court upheld the disbarment and the Supreme Court denied Evans' Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Evans' disbarment from the practice of law in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is final and this Court has now reactivated the Show Cause Order of March 10, 1986.
Upon consideration of Evans' Brief as well as the record of the district court's disbarment proceedings and appeal thereto, we find that Evans has not shown good cause why he should not be disbarred by this Court.
This Court may conduct, in accordance with its rules, disciplinary proceedings and levy appropriate sanctions. Moreover, the record of prior disciplinary proceedings in district court are of substantial relevance in determining whether an attorney should be disbarred from practice before this Court. In Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917), the Supreme Court held that the decision of the highest court of a state, which has disbarred an attorney, will be accorded great deference. In Selling, the Court held that it would abide by the state court decision unless:
from an intrinsic consideration of the state record one or all of the following conditions appear: (1) that the state procedure, from want of notice or opportunity to be heard, was wanting in due process; (2) that there was such an infirmity of proof as to facts found to have established the want of fair private and professional character as to give rise to a clear conviction on our part that we could not, consistently with our duty accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or (3) that some other grave reason existed which should convince us that to allow the natural consequences of the judgment to have their effect would conflict with the duty which rests upon us not to disbar except upon the conviction that, under the principles of right and justice we are constrained to do so.
We conclude that Selling also applies in the situation where the district court has disbarred an attorney.
Clearly, the district court's actions in Evans' case pass the Selling test. Evans was given sufficient notice and was provided an opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romero-Barcelo v. Acevedo-Vila
...the preliminary hearing. 10. We note that in at least one circuit, evidentiary hearings are not absolutely required. In re Evans, 834 F.2d 90, 91 (4th Cir.1987). 11. Although practice before a federal court is derivative from an attorney's membership in a state bar, disbarment by the state ......
-
In re Crayton
...the charges leveled against him. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 552, 88 S.Ct. at 1226. An evidentiary hearing is not required. In re Evans, 834 F.2d 90, 91 (4th Cir.1987). Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 544, 88 S.Ct. at 1222, involved a disciplinary action against an attorney accused of soliciting client......
-
Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Battistelli
...punish the lawyer, but to protect the public. 8 See also Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917); In re Evans, 834 F.2d 90 (4th Cir.1987); Wrighten v. United States, 550 F.2d 990 (4th The respondent here contends that reciprocal discipline under Article VI, Sectio......
-
In re Smith
...a federal district court's disbarment order. ... We will therefore apply the Selling factors in this proceeding.") (citing In re Evans, 834 F.2d 90, 91 (4th Cir.1987)). In determining whether reciprocal discipline is warranted, we must conduct intrinsic review of the underlying records in t......