Herman v. Dulles, No. 11627.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtEDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit
Citation205 F.2d 715
PartiesHERMAN v. DULLES, Secretary of State.
Docket NumberNo. 11627.
Decision Date04 June 1953

205 F.2d 715 (1953)

HERMAN
v.
DULLES, Secretary of State.

No. 11627.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued January 23, 1953.

Decided June 4, 1953.


205 F.2d 716

Messrs. Joseph L. Nellis and Kenneth N. Parkinson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. William R. Glendon, Washington, D. C., Asst. U. S. Atty. at time of argument, with whom Mr. Charles M. Irelan, Washington, D. C., U. S. Atty. at time of argument, was on the brief, for appellee.

Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard, Washington, D. C., Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time record was filed, and Ross O'Donoghue, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.

The International Claims Commission of the United States, in the Department of State, found that the appellant, an attorney, had violated certain canons of ethics of the American Bar Association. After a hearing the Commission revoked his right to appear before it. The then Secretary of State, advised by a committee of the District of Columbia Bar Association that the Commission's findings were correct, affirmed the revocation. On review the District Court entered a summary judgment against appellant. The present Secretary of State has been substituted as appellee.

An administrative agency that has general authority to prescribe its rules of procedure may set standards for determining who may practice before it. Goldsmith v. U. S. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117, 122, 46 S.Ct. 215, 70 L.Ed. 494. The International Claims Commission has express authority to "prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions". 64 Stat. 13, 22 U.S.C.A. § 1622(c). Before this controversy arose the Commission adopted and published certain Rules of Practice and Procedure. 15 F.R. 8675-8678. Section 300.4(b) of these Rules tells how attorneys may qualify to appear before the Commission. Section 300.6 prescribes grounds on which their right to appear may be revoked. One such ground is a finding by the Commission that an attorney "has failed to conform to recognized standards of professional conduct." 15 F.R. 8676. This rule supports the Commission's action against the appellant.1 Camp v. Herzog, 104 F.Supp. 134, decided by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 1952, is not to

the contrary. If the Board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 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
    ...exclude practitioners who practice before the Office in trademark and other non-patent matters. See 5 U.S.C. 500(d)(2); Herman v. Dulles, 205 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1953); and Attorney [[Page 69455]] Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act, pp.65-66 (1947). See also Harary v. Blumenthal, 55......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...exclude practitioners who practice before the Office in trademark and other non-patent matters. See 5 U.S.C. 500(d)(2); Herman v. Dulles, 205 F.2d 715 (D.C. Cir. 1953); and Attorney [[Page 69455]] Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act, pp.65-66 (1947). See also Harary v. Blumenthal, 55......
  • Matter of Koden, Interim Decision Number 2516
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • August 16, 1976
    ...contention, however, does not find support in the case law. See Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals, supra; Herman v. Dulles, 205 F.2d 715 (D.C.Cir.1953); Schwebel v. Orrick, 153 F.Supp. 701 (D.D.C.1957), affirmed on other grounds, 251 F.2d 919 (D.C.Cir.1958), cert. denied, 356 ......
  • Halvonik v. Dudas, No. CIV.A. 99-863.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 8, 2005
    ...unprofessional conduct." Koden v. United States Dep't of Justice, 564 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir.1977); see also Herman v. Dulles, Page 124 205 F.2d 715, 716 (D.C.Cir.1953) ("An administrative agency that has general authority to prescribe its rules of procedure may set standards for determinin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Matter of Koden, Interim Decision Number 2516
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • August 16, 1976
    ...contention, however, does not find support in the case law. See Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals, supra; Herman v. Dulles, 205 F.2d 715 (D.C.Cir.1953); Schwebel v. Orrick, 153 F.Supp. 701 (D.D.C.1957), affirmed on other grounds, 251 F.2d 919 (D.C.Cir.1958), cert. denied, 356 ......
  • Halvonik v. Dudas, No. CIV.A. 99-863.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 8, 2005
    ...unprofessional conduct." Koden v. United States Dep't of Justice, 564 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir.1977); see also Herman v. Dulles, Page 124 205 F.2d 715, 716 (D.C.Cir.1953) ("An administrative agency that has general authority to prescribe its rules of procedure may set standards for determinin......
  • In re Sheridan, No. 02-9007.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • March 29, 2004
    ...See, e.g., Kivitz v. SEC, 475 F.2d 956, 962 (D.C.Cir.1973) (power of SEC to disbar attorney for ethical misconduct); Herman v. Dulles, 205 F.2d 715, 715-16 (D.C.Cir.1953) (similar, International Claims Commission); Francis v. Virgin Islands, 11 F.2d 860, 864 (3d Cir.1926) (upholding the con......
  • EF Hutton & Company v. Brown, Civ. A. No. 68-H-592.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • September 18, 1969
    ...of conduct of its members, Herman v. Acheson, 108 F. Supp. 723 (D.D.C.1952), aff'd sub nom. Herman v. Dulles, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 303, 205 F.2d 715 (1953); cf. Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 529, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824), and form the model for the canons adopted by most states, including Texas an......
  • 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