In re Crow

• Decision Date: 04 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 14149.,14149.
• Parties: In the Matter of the Disbarment Proceedings of J. Harvey CROW.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

283 F.2d 685 (1960)

In the Matter of the Disbarment Proceedings of J. Harvey CROW.

No. 14149.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Decided November 4, 1960.

As Amended November 16, 1960.

J. Harvey Crow, in pro. per.

Phillip K. Folk, Columbus, Ohio, and D. Harland Jackman, London, Ohio, for Ohio State Bar Ass'n, amicus curiae.

Before SIMONS, Senior Circuit Judge, and CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges.

CECIL, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The appellant, J. Harvey Crow, was disbarred from practicing law in that court and now seeks a reversal of the judgment of disbarment.

The appellant was admitted to the Bar of Ohio and licensed to practice law in all of the courts of the State prior to 1929. Without going into the details of litigation connected with the professional career of the appellant, the ultimate facts with which we are concerned, as shown by the record, are as follows: He was admitted to the Bar of the District Court, August 20, 1929, disbarred by the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, January 18, 1935, and on the basis of that disbarment he was suspended from practice in the District Court, by order dated January 28, 1935. An order of disbarment was entered September 8, 1937. After reinstatement by the Stark County Court, he was readmitted to practice in the District Court March 2, 1950.

On August 16, 1956, the Court of Common Pleas of Champaign County, Ohio, after trial, filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered a judgment of disbarment. The Court that heard the case was composed of three visiting judges assigned especially by the Chief Justice of Ohio.

This judgment was affirmed by the State Court of Appeals May 24, 1957. On December 18, 1957, he appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio where his "appeal as of right herein was dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question was involved." 167 Ohio St. 165, 146 N.E.2d 846. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari June 24, 1958. Crow v. Faulkner, 357 U.S. 927, 78 S.Ct. 1372, 2 L.Ed.2d 1371.

On June 1, 1959, the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the report of the disbarment in Ohio, by order, without a hearing and without opinion, disbarred the appellant from practice in that Court. 359 U.S. 1007, 79 S.Ct. 1152, 3 L.Ed.2d 1025.

Subsequent to filing proceedings in the District Court, the appellant was cited for contempt in the Supreme Court of Ohio, for refusing to comply with the disbarment order. On this charge he was ordered to surrender his license to practice law in the state courts or serve six months in jail. He surrendered his certificate of admission to practice. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted an application for rehearing of this order and upon rehearing reentered an order and finding that J. Harvey Crow was guilty of contempt of court. Thereupon the said J. Harvey Crow petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio. This petition was denied.

The proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Champaign County which resulted in the disbarment were initiated by the appointment of an investigating committee. This committee was appointed by Judge Owen the resident judge of that court. The charges prepared and filed by the committee consisted of eleven specifications of misconduct. Seven of these were abandoned at the trial and the appellant was found guilty on specifications two, four, five and seven. The issues presented by the charges were fully tried by the court in a trial that continued throughout eight days. The appellant was present and participated in the trial.

The specifications upon which he was convicted are fully set forth in the opinion of District Judge Jones and reported at 181 F.Supp. 718. They are obviously such charges as affect his moral character and professional standing.

A District Court may provide by rule the qualifications upon which it will admit members to its Bar. Section 2071, Title 28 U.S.C., Rule 83 F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C. This is recognized by the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, which recommended "Suggested Local Rules for the United States District Courts." (1940) 4 Federal Rules Service 1021.

Requirements of the Court for the Northern District of Ohio, applicable to the appellant, are admission to the Bar of Ohio for one year and good moral character and professional standing. One having these qualifications may be admitted on oral motion of an attorney of the court in good standing. Rule 1(b) Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Subdivision (e) of this rule relating to disbarment adopts rule 1(e) of the "Proposed Uniform Local Rules for District Courts." 4 Federal Rules Service 1022. The applicable provision of this rule is as follows: "Whenever it is made to appear to the court that any member of its bar...