U.S. v. Ford, 85-3161
| Decision Date | 25 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-3161,85-3161 |
| Citation | 806 F.2d 769 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudia A. FORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Earl L. Washington, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.
Scott F. Turow, Asst. U.S. Atty., Anton R. Valukas, U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and COFFEY, Circuit Judges.
This is an attorney disciplinary matter. On December 3, 1985, almost a year ago, Claudia Ford was sentenced to 10 years in prison for bank robbery and related offenses for which a jury had convicted her. She was not admitted to bail pending appeal. On May 16, 1986, this court granted her motion to substitute Earl Washington for her previous attorney, and directed that he file his opening brief by June 18. No brief was filed, and on July 14 this court issued a rule to show cause why Mr. Washington should not be disciplined for his violation of the briefing schedule. Although the rule directed him to respond within 14 days, he took almost six weeks, responding on September 4 with an affidavit stating that he had become involved in other trials and had inadvertently failed to determine the date for filing the brief in this case, and also that he had been greatly distracted by the relocation of his law office. We accepted this explanation and gave him till September 29 to file his brief. September 29 came and went, and no brief was filed. On October 17 we issued a second rule to show cause why he should not be disciplined, to which Mr. Washington responded on November 3 explaining that he had been unable to prepare the brief on time because the court reporter had misplaced her notes of one part of the trial. Attached to the response is an undated letter to Washington from the reporter apologizing for any inconvenience caused. With the response Washington filed a motion for leave to file the brief instanter, plus the brief--a perfunctory job, 10 double-spaced typed pages in length with no case citations. He has not requested an oral hearing before imposition of discipline. See Fed.R.App. P. 46(c).
It is plain to us that Mr. Washington should not be allowed to represent litigants in this court, and he is hereby indefinitely suspended from practicing in this court (we cannot disbar him because he is not a member of the bar of this court), and fined $500 to be paid, in the office of the clerk of this court by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- US v. Maling
-
People v. Jung
...by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Sosa, 55 F.3d 278 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Ford, 806 F.2d 769 (7th Cir.1986). This court would be well served by following the Seventh Circuit's example. The use of a show cause order in these situa......
-
Presnick, Matter of, SAC
...----, 109 S.Ct. 784, 102 L.Ed.2d 775 (1989); In re Boucher, 837 F.2d 869, reh. granted, 850 F.2d 597 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Ford, 806 F.2d 769 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Gerrity, 804 F.2d 1330 (7th Cir.1986); In the Matter of Campos, 737 F.2d 824 (9th Cir.1984); In re Bithon......
-
In re Bagdade
...for unprofessional conduct, including the repeated filing of frivolous actions, often in an improper manner. In United States v. Ford, 806 F.2d 769, 770 (7th Cir.1986), an attorney handling a criminal appeal for an imprisoned client was suspended indefinitely and fined $500 for repeated fai......