In Re Disbarment of Strickland
Headline: High Court lifts its suspension of a New Jersey lawyer and discharges the show‑cause order, allowing him to remain on the Court’s roll after state reinstatement.
Holding: The Court vacated its March 9, 1981 suspension of a New Jersey attorney and discharged the rule to show cause, so he will not be disbarred from practicing before this Court.
- Restores attorney’s status on this Court’s roll, ending immediate disbarment risk.
- Allows him to seek to resume private practice after state reinstatement.
- Highlights tension between state discipline and this Court’s oversight, as the dissent notes.
Summary
Background
Maurice R. Strickland is a New Jersey lawyer who was admitted to this Court’s bar in 1966. State ethics complaints alleged he misappropriated client funds before November 15, 1975. New Jersey disciplinary bodies recommended suspension, the State’s Supreme Court adopted a five‑year suspension beginning November 15, 1975, and Strickland later repaid the money and was reinstated by New Jersey on March 4, 1981. This Court first learned of the suspension in February 1981 and on March 9 suspended him and issued an order to show cause why he should not be stricken from the rolls.
Reasoning
The immediate question before this Court was whether to carry forward the March 9 suspension and proceed toward striking Strickland from the Court’s bar. The Court’s final order vacated the prior March 9 suspension and discharged the rule to show cause, ending the pending threat of disbarment by this Court. The published filings show Strickland admitted the misconduct, repaid the funds by February 1978, has been employed since 1977, joined Alcoholics Anonymous in 1974, and was reinstated by New Jersey in March 1981.
Real world impact
The practical effect is that Strickland is not disbarred by this Court and the immediate disciplinary proceedings before this Court are concluded. He remains eligible to use his Court bar status while he seeks to resume private practice. The decision resolves the Court’s own suspension and ends the specific show‑cause process against him.
Dissents or concurrances
Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justice Rehnquist, dissented, arguing that a five‑year suspension and admitted embezzlement should warrant striking Strickland from the Court’s rolls and warning about the Court’s responsibility to maintain bar standards.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?