Razatos v. Colorado Supreme Court, 82-2516

• Decision Date: 29 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-2516,82-2516
• Citation: 746 F.2d 1429
• Parties: Peter S. RAZATOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COLORADO SUPREME COURT, P.V. Hodges, R.B. Lee, W.H. Erickson, L.D. Rovira, G.E. Lohr, J.E. Dubofsky, and J.R. Quinn, in their official capacities as Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1429

746 F.2d 1429

Peter S. RAZATOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The COLORADO SUPREME COURT, P.V. Hodges, R.B. Lee, W.H.

Erickson, L.D. Rovira, G.E. Lohr, J.E. Dubofsky, and J.R.

Quinn, in their official capacities as Justices of the

Colorado Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 82-2516.

United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 29, 1984.

Jonathon B. Chase, South Royalton, Vt. (Albert T. Frantz, Lakewood, Colo., with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Ruthanne Gartland, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State of Colo., Denver, Colo. (Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Sol. Gen., and Jill A. Gross, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), Denver, Colo., for defendants-appellees.

Before SETH, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, ^* Circuit Judges.

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

Peter Razatos, an attorney suspended from practice by the Colorado Supreme Court, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982). He seeks a declaratory judgment that the Colorado procedure for disciplining attorneys violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a hearing to clear his name. He asserts that under the Colorado attorney discipline scheme, the Colorado Supreme Court makes the final fact determination as to whether an attorney should be disciplined. He argues that this scheme violates the Fourteenth Amendment because due process requires that a personal hearing be held before the final decision-maker. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Razatos v. Colorado Supreme Court, 549 F.Supp. 798 (D.Colo.1982). It held alternatively that even if it had jurisdiction, the Colorado procedure does not violate due process. We disagree on the jurisdictional issue, but we affirm the judgment on the merits.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings in Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court has adopted rules governing the procedures by which disciplinary proceedings may be brought against attorneys in Colorado. At all times relevant to this case, those rules were embodied in Rules 241 through 259 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, 7A In cases where the panel decides to recommend discipline, it is required to file its report, findings, and recommendations with the Colorado Supreme Court. See Rule 252. The respondent attorney is provided an opportunity to file exceptions to the panel's report, after which the parties may designate portions of the record and file briefs. The matter stands submitted to the court on the briefs and on the designated record. The court must then determine the matter promptly and impose discipline or dismiss the complaint. Id.

                Colo.Rev.Stat.  (1973). 1  The rules establish a nineteen-member Grievance Committee, which is divided into two Hearings Panels of nine members each, see Rule 243, with the remaining member appointed as Grievance Committee Chairman.  See Rule 242.  When a formal complaint is brought against an attorney, it is assigned to one of the nine-member Hearings Panels.  The Grievance Committee Chairman then appoints a three-member Hearings Committee consisting of at least one member of the panel assigned to that complaint.  See Rule 249.  The committee conducts a formal hearing during which witnesses are sworn, testimony is taken, and a complete record is made.  Id.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the committee submits to the panel a report signed by a majority of the committee setting forth its findings and recommendations.  See Rule 251.  If approved by a majority of the panel, the findings and recommendations of the committee are adopted in the panel's report.  When the panel finds that the charges are proven, it recommends appropriate disciplinary action to the Colorado Supreme Court.  Id.  When the charges are unproven, the panel is required to dismiss the complaint, and the matter is terminated unless the complainant petitions the Colorado Supreme Court to review the dismissal.  Id
                

B. Razatos' Case

Upon review of a trial court's order of dismissal, we must assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. Poolaw v. City of Anadarko, 660 F.2d 459, 461 (10th Cir.1981); Bryan v. Stillwater Board of Realtors, 578 F.2d 1319, 1321 (10th Cir.1977). Razatos' complaint, as amended, states as follows:

"In 1975, plaintiff Razatos, who was a licensed real estate broker as well as an attorney, was approached by Mrs. Dorothy Lee Smith, who inquired of him if he knew of any bars for sale. Mr. Razatos thereafter assisted Mrs. Smith in the purchase of a bar then called the Littleton Lounge. Mrs. Smith eventually charged Mr. Razatos with professional misconduct in the course of these transactions and these charges ultimately led to plaintiff Razatos' suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years, the conduct complained of in this action. The critical issue central to the disciplinary proceedings was whether plaintiff Razatos was representing Mrs. Smith in these transactions as her attorney, as she claimed, or merely acting in his capacity as real estate broker, as he claimed. The credibility of several witnesses, including Mrs. Smith and Mr. Razatos, was a critical factor in making the final determination of Mr. Razatos' role in these transactions."

Rec., vol. I, at 7.

The charges against Mr. Razatos were first heard by a three-member Hearings Committee. All three members of the committee were also on the nine-member Hearings Panel assigned to the complaint. After a formal hearing during which witnesses testified and other evidence was produced, the committee found Razatos guilty and recommended suspension from practice for three years. It submitted its findings and recommendations to the nine-member panel, a majority of which approved them. The findings and recommendations of the committee thus became the report of the panel. The panel then referred its report to the Colorado Supreme Court. The court Razatos thereafter commenced this section 1983 action in federal district court against the Colorado Supreme Court and its justices. In the prior state proceedings, Razatos had contended that Rules 249 and 251 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure denied him due process because they permitted the nine-member panel to make the final determination of facts when only three of its members (those appointed to the Hearings Committee) actually observed the witnesses, and the remaining six members allegedly did not have a transcript of the committee hearing. The State took the position that under Colorado law, the Colorado Supreme Court was the final fact-finder in disciplinary proceedings, rather than the nine-member Hearings Panel as asserted by Razatos. The Colorado Supreme Court did not address this argument in its opinion.

                upon a review of the record, was persuaded "that the material findings of fact reflected in [the panel's] report are supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the recommendations for discipline are appropriate."   People v. Razatos, 636 P.2d 666, 667 (Colo.1981).  Accordingly, the court adopted the panel's recommendations and suspended Razatos for three years.  Razatos appealed the court's decision to the United States Supreme Court, which denied the appeal.   Razatos v. Colorado, 455 U.S. 930, 102 S.Ct. 1415, 71 L.Ed.2d 639 (1982)
                

In his section 1983 claim, Razatos accepts the position of the State that the Colorado Supreme Court is the final fact-finder under the rules. Relying on United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980), he asserts that Rule 252, as so construed, violates due process. Razatos claims that in cases where credibility of witnesses is crucial to the decision, the final arbiters of fact must see the witnesses and have an opportunity themselves to assess credibility in order to satisfy due process. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, on the ground that Rule 252 does not violate due process.

II.

JURISDICTION

A United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings. Such review resides exclusively in the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 (1982); see also Phelps v. Kansas Supreme Court, 662 F.2d 649, 651 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 944, 102 S.Ct. 2009, 72 L.Ed.2d 466 (1982); Younger v. Colorado State Board of Law Examiners, 625 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir.1980). Therefore, to the extent Razatos sought review in the district court of the judicial decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, the district court properly refused to hear his complaint.

The Supreme Court has recognized a distinction, however, between a disciplined attorney's challenge to his particular disciplinary proceedings and a generalized constitutional attack on the state's rules and regulations governing discipline. In District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), the Court said that in the latter kind of case, the district court is not required to review a state court judicial decision but rather to assess the validity of a rule promulgated in a non-judicial proceeding.

"We have recognized that state supreme courts may act in a nonjudicial capacity in promulgating rules regulating the bar.... Challenges to the constitutionality of state bar rules, therefore, do not necessarily require a United States District Court to review a final state-court judgment in a judicial proceeding. Instead, the District Court may simply be asked to assess the validity of a rule promulgated in a nonjudicial proceeding. If this is the case, the District Court is not reviewing a state-court judicial decision. In this regard, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 does not act as a bar to the District Court's consideration of the case and because the proceedings giving rise to the rule are nonjudicial the policies prohibiting United...