Sullivan v. COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS & GRIEVANCES OF US DIST. COURT FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 19732.
Decision Date | 03 March 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 19732.,19732. |
Citation | 395 F.2d 954 |
Parties | Donald M. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS AND GRIEVANCES OF the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Joseph A. Fanelli, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Andrew A. Lipscomb, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.
Mr. Francis W. Hill, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edmund L. Jones and Roger Robb, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Senior Circuit Judge, BURGER and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from part of a judgment of the District Court dismissing charges of misconduct filed by the District Court's Committee on Admissions and Grievances against Appellant Sullivan, a member of the District Court Bar.
The background of this case is revealed in this court's three opinions in Gage v. Riggs National Bank,1 and in the matter of the Estate of Margaret Delano Gage, Administration No. 105422. The problem is rather well known to members of the Bar.
The appeal arises in part out of the activities of the American Archives Association and its pattern of relations with some members of the legal profession; the fact pattern in this case is fairly representative of similar occurrences in this jurisdiction.
American Archives Association is what is commonly called a "missing heir finder" notwithstanding its pretentious name. As such it located the 14 heirs of Margaret Delano Gage before any of them had counsel, and secured assignments from the 12 paternal heirs, providing that each would pay Archives forty per cent (40%) of any amounts said heirs might receive from the proceeds of the estate. As is Archives' usual practice the name of the estate was not disclosed until Archives had exhausted its efforts to induce all of the heirs to give assignments to it.
The remaining facts are developed in a stipulation entered into by Appellant and the Committee in the District Court.
Charges against Appellant were heard by the Committee on Admissions and Grievances. The Committee specifically found that Appellant had violated Canons 6, 16, 27, 28, and 35 of the Canons of Ethics.
In a Memorandum Opinion of May 25, 1965, a three-judge District Court found that each of the said Canons had been violated but, for reasons set forth in its opinion, concluded to dismiss the charges with an admonition to Appellant and a caveat to the bar generally.
Appellant appeals only from that part of the District Court Opinion, as incorporated in the Order of dismissal, which he views as reflecting unfavorably on his professional conduct.
The Appellee questions Appellant's standing to maintain the appeal since the District Court concluded for appropriate reasons not to impose sanctions in this case. However, the District Court has determined that Appellant was guilty of proscribed conduct and this determination plainly reflects adversely on his professional reputation. In a sense Appellant's posture is not unlike that of an accused who is found guilty but with penalties suspended. We conclude this gives him standing to appeal.
We need not deal separately with each finding and conclusion of the District Court to reach the heart of the matter. The essence of the case is embraced in the following portion of its opinion:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
...and Walker, 129 F.3d at 832 (factual finding of misconduct alone sufficient to constitute sanction), and Sullivan v. Comm. on Admissions and Grievances, 395 F.2d 954, 956 (D.C.Cir.1967) (same), with Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that a factual fi......
-
Williams, In re
...the attorney engaged in misconduct even though the committee did not impose a monetary penalty. See Sullivan v. Committee on Admissions & Grievances, 395 F.2d 954, 956 (D.C.Cir.1967). The Court rejected the contention that a penalty other than an reprimand was required in order to permit an......
-
Wilfred I. v. U.S. Tax Court
...follow as a matter of course." A year later the court appeared even more deferential, stating in Sullivan v. Comm. on Admissions & Grievances , 395 F.2d 954, 956 (D.C. Cir. 1967), supp. op. on reh'g (D.C. Cir. 1968), that the conduct of which the attorney was found guilty—namely, violating ......
-
Foretich v. U.S.
...of stigmatizing reports and thereby to relieve [the appellant] of much of the resulting injury." Id.; cf. Sullivan v. Comm. on Admissions, 395 F.2d 954, 956 (D.C.Cir.1967) (holding that an attorney charged with misconduct had standing on the basis of reputational injury to appeal those port......
-
HEIR HUNTING.
...[https://perma.cc/B5PT-7XUR]. (144) Sullivan v. Comm. on Admissions & Grievances of the U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C, 395 F.2d 954, 956-57 (D.C. Cir. 1967); see also In re Atkinson's Est., 20 Pa. D. & C.3d 700, 721 (C.P. Phila. Cnty., Orphans' Ct. Div. 1981), aff'd sub nom. Est. of Atkins......