|
|
In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968)
In re Ruffalo No. 73 Argued March 4, 1968 Decided April 8, 1968 390 U.S. 544
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner, a trial lawyer who handled many Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) cases, was charged by the Ohio Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline with 12 misconduct counts. Two charges involved soliciting FELA plaintiffs as clients through Orlando, a railroad employee. At the hearings before the Board, both Orlando and petitioner testified that Orlando did not solicit clients for petitioner, but merely investigated cases for him, in some of which Orlando’s employer was a defendant. Thereafter, the Board added a misconduct charge, No. 13, based on petitioner’s hiring of Orlando to investigate Orlando’s own employer. The Board found petitioner guilty of seven counts of misconduct, including No. 13, concerning which the Board relied solely on the testimony of petitioner and Orlando. On review, the Ohio Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to sustain only No. 13 and one other charge. The court’s order indefinitely suspending petitioner from the practice of law became final, and is not here on review. There followed proceedings based on the state court’s suspension order to bar petitioner from practicing in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, relying solely on the Ohio court’s record and findings, held that one charge, No. 13, justified petitioner’s disbarment in that court.
Held: The lack of notice to petitioner, prior to the time he and Orlando testified, that petitioner’s employment of Orlando would be considered a disbarment offense deprived petitioner of procedural due process. Pp. 547-552.
(a) Though state disbarment action is entitled to respect, it is not conclusively binding on the federal courts. Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 281-282. P. 547.
(b) A lawyer charged with misconduct in a disbarment proceeding is entitled to procedural due process, which includes fair notice of the charge. P. 550.
(c) Petitioner had no notice that his employment of Orlando would be considered a disbarment offense until after both petitioner and Orlando had testified. Pp. 550-551.
370 F.2d 447, reversed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968) in 390 U.S. 544 390 U.S. 545. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5JKA6J6UIKX6AZI.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968), in 390 U.S. 544, page 390 U.S. 545. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5JKA6J6UIKX6AZI.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in In Re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968). cited in 1968, 390 U.S. 544, pp.390 U.S. 545. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5JKA6J6UIKX6AZI.
|