In the Matter of John Ruffalo, Jr., Petitioner, No. 73

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDOUGLAS
Citation88 S.Ct. 1222,390 U.S. 544,20 L.Ed.2d 117
PartiesIn the Matter of John RUFFALO, Jr., Petitioner
Docket NumberNo. 73
Decision Date08 April 1968

390 U.S. 544
88 S.Ct. 1222
20 L.Ed.2d 117
In the Matter of John RUFFALO, Jr., Petitioner.
No. 73.
Argued March 4, 1968.
Decided April 8, 1968.
Rehearing Denied May 27, 1968.

See 391 U.S. 961, 88 S.Ct. 1833.

Page 545

Craig Spangenberg, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.

Thomas V. Koykka, Cleveland, Ohio, for Ohio State and Mahoning County Bar Assns.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Ohio on two findings of alleged misconduct. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Ruffalo, 176 Ohio St. 263, 199 N.E.2d 396. That order became final and is not here on review. The Federal District Court, after ordering petitioner to show cause why he should not be disbarred, found that there was no misconduct. In re Ruffalo, 249 F.Supp. 432 (D.C.N.D.Ohio). The Court of Appeals likewise ordered petitioner to show cause why he should not be stricken from the roll of that court on the basis of Ohio's disbarment order. The majority held that while one of the two charges might not justify discipline, the other one did; and it disbarred petitioner from practice in that Court. 370 F.2d 447 (C.A.6th Cir.). The dissenting judge thought that neither charge justified suspension from practice.1 Id., at 460. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 389 U.S. 815, 88 S.Ct. 30, 19 L.Ed.2d 66.

Page 546

Petitioner was an active trial lawyer who handled many Federal Employers' Liability Act cases. The Association of American Railroads investigated his handling of claims and referred charges of impropriety to the President of the Mahoning County Bar Association who was also local counsel for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. See In re Ruffalo, 249 F.Supp. 432, 435, n. 3. The Mahoning County Bar Association then filed the charges against petitioner.

In the state court proceedings, upon which the decision of the Court of Appeals relied (see Rule 6(3) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit), the Ohio Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline originally charged petitioner with 12 counts of misconduct. Charges Nos. 4 and 5 accused petitioner of soliciting FELA plaintiffs as clients through an agent, Michael Orlando. At the hearings which followed, both Orlando and petitioner testified that Orlando did not solicit clients for petitioner but merely investigated FELA cases for him. It was brought out that some of Orlando's investigations involved cases where his employer, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, was defendant. Immediately after hearing this testimony, the Board, on the third day of hearings, added a charge No. 13 against petitioner based on his hiring Orlando to investigate Orlando's own employer. Counsel for petitioner objected, stating:

'Oh, I object to that very highly. There is nothing morally wrong and there is nothing legally wrong with it. * * * When does the end of these amendments come? I mean the last minute you are here, (counsel for the county Bar Association) may bring in another amendment. I think this gentleman (petitioner) has a right to know beforehand what the charges are against him and be heard on those charges.'

Page 547

Motion to strike charge No. 13 was denied, but the Board gave petitioner a continuance in order to have time to respond to the new charge.

The State Board found petitioner guilty of seven counts of misconduct, including No. 13. On review, the Supreme Court of Ohio found the evidence sufficient to sustain only two charges, one of them being No. 13, but concluded that the two violations required disbarment. The only charge on which the Court of Appeals acted was No. 13, which reads as follows:

'That Respondent did conspire with one, Michael Orlando, and paid said Michael Orlando moneys for preparing lawsuits against the B. & O. Railroad, the employer of said Michael Orlando, during all the periods of time extending from 1957 to July of 1961, well knowing that said practice was deceptive in its nature and was morally and legally wrong as respects the employee, Michael Orlando, toward his employer, the B. & O. Railroad Company.'

Through admission to practice before a federal court is derivative from membership in a state bar, disbarment by the State does not result in automatic disbarment by the federal court. Though that state action is entitled to respect, it is not conclusively binding on the federal courts. Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 281—282, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1276, 1 L.Ed.2d 1342.

Petitioner, active in the trial of FELA cases, hired a railroad man to help investigate the cases. He was Orlando, a night-shift car inspector for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. There was no evidence that Orlando ever investigated a case in the yard where he worked as inspector. There was no evidence that he ever investigated on company time. Orlando had no access to confidential information; and there was no claim he ever revealed secret matters or breached any trust. It is clear

Page 548

from the record that petitioner chose a railroad man to help him investigate those claims because Orlando knew railroading.

One federal guidepost in this field is contained in § 10 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act, as amended, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U.S.C. § 60, which was enacted to encourage employees of common carriers to furnish information 'to a person in interest,' as to facts incident to the injury or death of an employee.2

The Ohio Supreme Court, however, concluded that 'one who believes that it is proper to employ and pay another to work against the interests of his regular employer is not qualified to be a member of the Ohio Bar.' 176 Ohio St., at 269, 199 N.E.2d, at 401.

We are urged to hold that petitioner's efforts to conceal this employment relationship and the likelihood of a conflict of interest require the federal courts to respect the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court as being within the range of discretion.

Page 549

We do not pursue that inquiry. Nor do we stop to inquire whether the proceeding was defective because the Bar Association, the agency that made the charges against petitioner, was headed by counsel for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. against which petitioner filed several of his claims. For there is one other issue dispositive of the case which requires reversal.

As noted, the charge (No. 13) for which petitioner stands disbarred was not in the original charges made against him. It was only after both he and Orlando had testified that this additional charge was added. Thereafter, no additional evidence against petitioner relating to charge No. 13 was taken. Rather, counsel for the county bar association said:

'We will stipulate that as far as we are concerned, the only facts that we will introduce in support of Specification No. 13 are the statements that Mr. Ruffalo has made here in open court and the testimony of Mike Orlando from the witness stand. Those are the only facts we have to support this Specification No. 13.'

There was de novo hearing before the Court of Appeals. Rather, it rested on the Ohio court's record and findings:

'We have before us, and have reviewed, the entire record developed by the Ohio proceedings, but think it proper to dispose of the matter primarily upon the charges on which the Ohio Court disciplined Mr. Ruffalo. The facts as to these are not in dispute. We consider whether we find insupportable the Ohio Court's determination that such facts disclosed unprofessional conduct warranting the discipline imposed and whether they warrant similar discipline by us.' 370 F.2d, at 449.

Page 550

The Court of Appeals proceeded to analyze the 'admitted facts of Charge No. 13' as found by the Ohio court and the Ohio court's ruling on those facts. Id., at 450—452.

If there are any constitutional defects in what the Ohio court did concerning Charge 13, those defects are reflected in what the Court of Appeals decided. The Court of Appeals stated:

'We do not find in the record of the state proceedings, 'Such an infirmity of proof as to the facts found to have established the want of * * * (Ruffalo's) fair private and professional character' to lead us to a conviction that we cannot, consistent with our duty, 'accept as final the conclusion' of the Supreme Court and the Ohio bar.' Id., at 453.

We turn then to the question whether in Ohio's procedure...

To continue reading

Request your trial
808 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
    ...evidence. Any party would be given reasonable opportunity to meet any allegations in an amended complaint or answer. See In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968). The section is modified to provide that the matter need not be referred back to the Committee on Discipline to amend the Section 11.49......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...evidence. Any party would be given reasonable opportunity to meet any allegations in an amended complaint or answer. See In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968). The section is modified to provide that the matter need not be referred back to the Committee on Discipline to amend the Section 11.49......
  • Javits v. Stevens, No. 73 Civ. 5339-LFM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 24, 1974
    ...of misconduct, although alleged in a single charge, breached several of the Canons. Plaintiffs seek to compare this case to In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968). There, the Supreme Court found that an attorney's right to procedural due process had been violated ......
  • Wolff v. Donnell 8212 679, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1974
    ...of private property, Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363 (1914), the revocation of licenses, In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968), the operation of state dispute-settlement mechanisms, when one person seeks to take property from another,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
805 cases
  • Javits v. Stevens, No. 73 Civ. 5339-LFM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 24, 1974
    ...of misconduct, although alleged in a single charge, breached several of the Canons. Plaintiffs seek to compare this case to In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968). There, the Supreme Court found that an attorney's right to procedural due process had been violated ......
  • Wolff v. Donnell 8212 679, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1974
    ...of private property, Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363 (1914), the revocation of licenses, In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968), the operation of state dispute-settlement mechanisms, when one person seeks to take property from another,......
  • Doe v. City of Lafayette, Ind., No. 01-3624.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 30, 2004
    ...forced registration of sex offenders with the Department of Corrections as a civil sanction). For example, in In the Matter of Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968), the Court found that "[d]isbarment, designed to protect the public, is a punishment or penalty imp......
  • In re Royal Manor Mgmt., Inc., BAP Nos. 13–8054
    • United States
    • Bankruptcy Appellate Panels. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Sixth Circuit
    • February 5, 2015
    ...discipline cases cited address lack of notice or substantive legal standards being changed after the fact. See, e.g. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968). The other case cited, Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 123 S.Ct. 2446, 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (2003), addresse......
  • 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