In re Echeles, 15725.

• Decision Date: 05 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 15725.,15725.
• Citation: 374 F.2d 780
• Parties: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings of Julius Lucius ECHELES. Julius Lucius Echeles, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

374 F.2d 780 (1967)

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings of Julius Lucius ECHELES Julius Lucius Echeles, Appellant.

No. 15725.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

February 28, 1967.

As Corrected April 5, 1967.

Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Chicago, Ill., Thomas P. Sullivan, Kenneth S. Broun, Chicago, Ill., Raymond, Mayer, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellant.

Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., Robert J. Collins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., John P. Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel, for appellee.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, SWYGERT and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal concerns the status of Julius Lucius Echeles as an attorney at the bar of the district court for the northern district of Illinois.

On May 6, 1964, Echeles was convicted of felony.¹ On June 23, 1964, the executive committee of the district court² entered an order suspending Echeles from practice. The order recited that Echeles had been convicted of a felony, and that the order was in accordance with Rule 8 of the general rules of the district court. The order was entered without notice or hearing, but there is no challenge to its propriety on that account, nor to the validity of the rule.

Mr. Echeles appealed from the judgment of conviction, and on September 2, 1965, this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.³ This court concluded that evidence tending to establish guilt was sufficient to warrant submission to a jury, but that it had been error to deny Echeles a trial separate from that of another defendant.

On May 4, 1966, Mr. Echeles moved that the order of suspension be vacated. Certain additional facts were brought to the attention of the executive committee by an answer filed by the United States attorney, but there was no hearing. On May 17, the executive committee denied Echeles' motion, without prejudice to a new motion upon the conclusion of the pending criminal case.

Mr. Echeles has appealed from the May 17 order.

Appellant takes the position that the entire foundation for the 1964 suspension order was the 1964 conviction; that reversal of the conviction extinguished all support for the order and the order must be vacated. The United States attorney counters with the fact that Mr. Echeles was convicted of conspiracy and attempted bribery in 1954, and argues that under these circumstances the reversal of the 1964 conviction does not necessitate vacation of the 1964 suspension.

Rule 8 was revised May 1, 1965. In both forms, however, it has provided for ex parte suspension or disbarment of an attorney convicted of felony, and for suspension or disbarment for other causes, determined after notice and hearing. It presently contains no provision for the event of reversal of a judgment of conviction underlying an ex parte order of suspension or disbarment. It formerly provided that in such event, the court "may reinstate."

We agree with appellant that under the circumstances the 1954 conviction no longer affords a foundation for a summary suspension under Rule 8 even though it fulfils the rule if taken literally. It appears that in 1955 appellant, presumably on account of the 1954 conviction, obtained permission from the supreme court of Illinois to withdraw from the active roll of attorneys. That court reinstated him in 1959. Although it does not appear that he ever formally withdrew from the bar of the district court, he did, in 1959, file a petition representing that he had not practiced before the court during that period, and he obtained an order thereon, entered by one judge, admitting him to practice. The offenses of which he was convicted in 1954 are surely relevant to his trustworthiness as an attorney, and...