In re Disbarment of Day
Headline: Court disbars a lawyer after state disciplinary action, removing his ability to practice before the Supreme Court immediately even though his Texas appeal of the suspension is still pending.
Holding: The Court entered an order disbarring the lawyer from practice before this Court even though his appeal of the Texas suspension was still pending.
- Removes the lawyer’s ability to practice before the Supreme Court immediately.
- Allows the Court to discipline attorneys even while state appeals continue.
- Raises concern about deferring to state appeal procedures in lawyer discipline.
Summary
Background
A lawyer pleaded guilty to various felonies and the State Bar of Texas brought a disciplinary action seeking disbarment. A Texas trial court enjoined the lawyer from practicing law in Texas. This Court then issued an order suspending the lawyer from practice before this Court and required him to show cause why he should not be disbarred. The lawyer has appealed the state trial court’s ruling, and that appeal is still pending.
Reasoning
The central practical question in the text is whether this Court should enter a disbarment now while the state appeal is unresolved. The document states simply that ‘‘Disbarment entered,’’ indicating the Court ordered disbarment. The opinion text provided does not set out the Court’s detailed reasons for entering disbarment, but it shows the Court proceeded to disbar the lawyer despite the pending state appeal and suspended practice in this Court beforehand.
Real world impact
As a direct result, the lawyer is removed from the roll of those allowed to practice before this Court and cannot appear in this Court’s proceedings. The decision, as described in the text, creates an immediate professional consequence even while the underlying state-court appeal continues. The text also highlights a tension about how much this Court should wait for state procedures to finish before imposing its own discipline.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall, joined by the Chief Justice, dissented. He argued that the Court should wait until the state appeal and state procedures are final before disbarring the lawyer, saying the Court should not offer fewer procedural protections than the State of Texas provides.
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?