In Re Disbarment of Crow

Background

John Harvey Crow, an Ohio lawyer, was disbarred by a Common Pleas Court in Ohio on August 16, 1956. The Supreme Court suspended him from practicing before this Court on March 23, 1959 and issued a rule requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred. Crow filed a return denying the charges; three allegations related to his conduct in divorce proceedings and a fourth alleged he failed to return $100 entrusted for posting a bond.

Reasoning

After considering the rule to show cause and Crow’s return, the Court ordered that Crow be disbarred and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before this Court. The published order states that the Court reached that disposition upon consideration of the filings; it does not set out extended factual findings in the order itself. The central procedural question was whether to accept the state disbarment and disbar him here after reviewing his written response.

Real world impact

The practical effect is that Crow may no longer practice before the Supreme Court and his name is removed from this Court’s roll of admitted attorneys. This order enforces the state disbarment at the level of this Court in this specific case and concludes the disciplinary proceeding against him as to admission here. The decision resolves his ability to appear as counsel in this Court unless the Court later reopens the matter.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Black, dissented, arguing the Court departed from its usual practice by not appointing a committee to investigate Crow’s factual claims and procedural complaints before entering an order of disbarment.