# In Re Ruffalo

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 27, 1968 · 390 U.S. 544

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423656

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Ruffalo
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 27, 1968
- **Citations:** 390 U.S. 544; 88 S. Ct. 1222; 20 L. Ed. 2d 117; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2000
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harlan
- **Judges:** Harlan, White, Douglas, Marshall, Black, Court'S, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 860 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423656

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an attorney subject to discipline is entitled to procedural due process
- holding that an "absence of fair *989notice" in disbarment proceedings violated lawyer's due process rights where additional charges were filed against him after he had testified as to material facts regarding that charge
- holding that an "absence of fair notice" in disbarment proceedings violated lawyer's due process rights where additional charges were filed against him after he had testified as to material facts regarding that charge
- holding that absence of fair notice as to reach of grievance procedure and precise nature of charges against him in state disbarment proceeding deprived attorney of procedural due process

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring in the result.
I see no need to decide whether the notice given petitioner of the charge that formed the basis of his subsequent federal disbarment was adequate to afford him constitutional due process in the state proceedings. For I think that Theard v. United States, 354 U. S. 278 , leaves us free to hold, as I would, that such notice should not be accepted as adequate for the purposes of disbarment from a federal court. On that basis, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423656. Public record. Not legal advice.