# In the Matter of Arthur Lawrence Abrams, an Attorney-At-Law

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · June 30, 1975 · 521 F.2d 1094

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462070

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Arthur Lawrence ABRAMS, an Attorney-At-Law, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** June 30, 1975
- **Citations:** 521 F.2d 1094; 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13931
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Van Dusen
- **Judges:** Seitz, Van Dusen, Aldisert, Adams, Rosenn, Hunter, Weis
- **Cited by:** 71 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/9462070

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing the "absolute and unfettered power" of the federal courts to admit and discipline members of its bar independently and separately from admission and disciplinary procedures of the state courts
- reversing sanctions order for failing to follow local rule specifying disciplinary procedures

## Opinion text

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
While joining in the separate opinion of Judge Adams for reversal and remand due to Local Rules 7(2)(d) and 7(4), I find this an exceedingly close case as to whether affirmance is required on this record, as contended in the United States Attorney’s brief, and respectfully state these views not stated in Judge Adams’ opinion. I emphasize the majority’s language that “the starting point for analysis is the unquestioned principle that the District Court of New Jersey, like all federal courts, has the power both to prescribe requirements for admission to practice before that court and to discipline attorneys who have been admitted to practice before that court” (p. 1099) and that its discipline “may be at variance with that taken by the state court system” (p. 1102). 1 See In re Fleck, 419 F.2d 1040 (6th Cir. 1969).
The district court is entitled to regulate its bar, inter alia, in order to assure proper advocacy to assist it in the conduct of its judicial functions. In Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 50 , 37 S.Ct. 377, 378 , 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917), the Court emphasized “the condition of fair private and professional character, without the possession of which there could be -no possible right to continue to be a member of this Bar.”
. In the case of Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 529, 530 , 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824), from which the majority quotes at page 1099 of its opinion, the Court stated:
“If there be a revising tribunal, which possesses controlling authority, that tribunal will always feel the delicacy of interposing its authority, and would do so only in a plain case. Some doubts are felt in this court respecting the extent of its authority as to the conduct of the circuit and district courts towards their officers; but without deciding on this question, the court is not inclined to interpose, unless it were in a case where the conduct of the circuit or district court was irregular, or was flagrantly improper.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462070. Public record. Not legal advice.