Prologue — Weinstock v. Grievance Committee Committee Committee for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (No. 05-1123)

In The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

¢

ISRAEL WEINSTOCK,

Petitioner,

V.

COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS AND GRIEVANCES

OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT; GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,

Respondents.

€

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court-Of Appeals

For The Second Circuit

4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

¢

ROBERT S. CATZ MarK H. SHENFIELD :

Counsel of Record 730 Harrison Street, Suite 201

1600 28th Street, N.W. San Francisco, California 94107

Washington, D.C. 20007 (415) 495-3119

(202) 276-6088

Attorneys for Petitioner

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(1) In federal reciprocal disciplinary proceedings,

does due process require findings of professional miscon-

duct supported by clear and convincing evidence, thereby

prohibiting federal reciprocal disbarment based on an

underlying antecedent New York disbarment order ren-

dered on the mere preponderance of the evidence standard

applied by New York disciplinary tribunals-which, éx-

pressly rejecting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979),

treat a law license as a mere property interest?

(2) Does the mere preponderance of the evidence

standard, required to be applied by New York disciplinary

tribunals by the New York Court of Appeals and later

applied in federal attorney reciprocal disciplinary pro-

ceedings, constitute an unconstitutional infirmity of proof

of professional misconduct resulting in a grave injustice

for want of fundamentally fair procedures and a full and

fair opportunity to be heard under Selling v. Radford, 243

U.S. 46 (1917)?

(3) Given the lower standard of proof mandated by

the New York Court of Appeals, does the absence of

uniformity among the several states and the federal courts

located in those states regarding the applicable standard of

proof in federal reciprocal disbarment proceedings violate

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides

that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all

privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states?

(4) Do members of the New York bar, as well as

members of the bars of Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Maine, Michigan, Missouri and Texas, enjoy the equal

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED - Continued

protection under the Fifth Amendment regarding the

higher standard of proof to be applied in federal reciprocal

disbarment proceedings as enjoyed by members of the bar

in all the other several states and federal courts within

those states that require clear and convincing evidence of

professional misconduct?

II, PARTIES

Petitioner Israel Weinstock is an adult citizen and

resident of Queens, New York and was admitted to prac-

tice as an attorney in the State of New York under he was

disbarred on April 8, 2002 by th New York Supreme

Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. In 2006

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

and the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York entered final orders of federal recip-

rocal disbarment based on Petitioner’s 2002 disbarment in

New York. The Committee on Admissions and Grievances

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit and the Committee on Gnevances for the United

States District for the Southern District of New York are

the real party respondents in interest.

VIII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

PARTIES

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED..

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The New York Disbarment Proceedings

The Federal Court Reciprocal Disciplinary Pro-

ceedings

REASONS FOR GRANTING A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

A. The Second Circuit’s Decision Applying

New York’s Preponderance of the Evidence

Standard to Federal Reciprocal Disbarment

Proceedings Directly Conflicts with Appli-

cable Decisions of this Court, the Fifth,

Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh,

and Federal Circuits, 42 States and the

District of Columbia, Rule V(A) of the Rules

of Federal Disciplinary Enforcement, and

the Majority of Common Law Jurisdictions

That All Require Clear and Convincing

Evidence of Misconduct Before Sanctions

May Be Imposed by a Professional Body on

Any Licensed Fiduciary

Importing the Preponderance Standard to

Federal Reciprocal Disbarment Proceedings

Violates the Privileges and Immunities

Clause And Equal Protection

CONCLUSION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Adams v. Henderson, 168 U.S. 573 (1897)

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979)

Allen v. Cuomo, 100 F.3d 253 (2nd Cir. 1996)

Arden v. Bar, 739 P.2d 236 (Cal. 1967)

Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656 (1975)

Bar v. Dineen, 481 A.2d 499 (Maine 1984)

Bar v. Dungan, 586 S.W.2d 15 (Ky. 1979)

Bar v. Farrant, 867 P.2d 1279 (Okla. 1994)

Bar v. Gunter, 183 S.E.2d 713 (Va. 1971)

Bar v. Heilprin, 207 N.W.2d 878 (Wisc. 1973)

Bar v. Posler, 213 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. 1973)

Bar v. Shelton, 855 So.2d 444 (Miss. 2003)

Bar v. Smith, 399 S.E.2d 36 (W.Va. 1990)

Bhandari v. Advocates Committee, 3 All English

Reports 742 (1956)

Board v. D.J.I., 545 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa 1996)

Board v. Vidakovich, 816 P.2d 885 (Wyo. 1991)

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)

Chaunt v. U.S., 364 U.S. 350 (1960)

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S.

432 (1985)

Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Crotty, 346 F.3d

84 (2nd Cir. 2003)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme

Court v. Hart, 708 N.W.2d 606 (Neb. 2005)

Curtis v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, 20

S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App. 2000)

Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

Disciplinary Council v. Rapp, 777 P.2d 710 (Hawaii

Disciplinary Counsel v. Zingarelli, 729 N.E.2d 1167

(Ohio 2000)

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)

Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. 529 (1824)

Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265 (1882)

Grievance Committee v. Bakas, 589 A.2d 52 (Md.

Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978)

Hucably v. Bar, 631 So.2d 855 (Ala. 1993)

In re Bailey, 786 N.E.2d 337 (Mass. 2003)

In re Batista, 846 So.2d 479 (Fla. 2003)

In re Bell South, 334 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2003)

In re Benge, 783 A.2d 1279 (Del. 2001)

In re Bird, 353 F.3d 636 (8th Cir. 2003)

In re Burton, 553 S.E.2d 579 (Georgia 2001)

In re Crayton, 192 B.R. 970 (9th Cir. BAP 1996)

In re Discipline, 645 N.E.2d 906 (Ill. 1994)

In re Fallin, 255 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2001)

In re Fisher, 179 F.2d 361 (7th Cir. 1950)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

In re Friday, 208 S.E.2d 535 (S.C. 1974)

In re Friedman, 51 F.3d 20 (2nd Cir. 1995)

In re Giles, 871 P.2d 693 (Ariz. 1994)

In re Gygi, 541 P.2d 1392 (Oregon 1975)

In re Halperin, 139 F.2d 361 (D.C. Cir. 1943)

In re Hirt, 34 DLR 4th 331 (B.C. Court of Appeal

In re Horton, 665 P.2d 275 (N.M. 1993)

In re Hughee, 795 N.E.2d 450 (ind. 2003)

In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84 (2nd Cir. 1994)

In re Jacquith, 117 N.W.2d 97 (S.D. 1962)

In re Jarvis, 869 P.2d 671 (Kan. 1994)

In re Jenkins, 816 P.2d 335 (Idaho 1991)

In re Jensen, 468 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. 1991)...........0.000...... 16

In re Larson, 512 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 1994)

In re Matter Palmer, 252 S.E.2d 784 (N.C. 1979)

In re Matter Warden, 146 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. 1940)

In re McCullough, °5 P.2d 13 (Utah 1939)

In re Medrano, 956 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 1992)

In re Ort, 631 A.2d 937 (N.J. 1993)

In re Palmisano, 70 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 1995) a....0.0.00.0.... a6

In re Quaid, 646 So.2d 343 (La. 1994)

In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968) .........000.00..... 9, 10, 15, 22

In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622 (1959)

vill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

In re Schaefer, 25 P.3d 191 (Nev. 2002)

In re Sexton, 774 S.W.2d 1141 (Ark 1989)

In re Sheridan, 362 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2004)

In re Shigon, 29 A.2d 235 (Pa. 1974)

In re Sims, 844 A.2d 353 (D.C. 2004)

In re Thatcher, 190 F. 969 (6th Cir. 1911)

In re Walton, 676 P.2d 1078 (Alaska 1984)

In re Watts, 701 A.2d 319 (R.I. 1997)

In re Wentz, 87 P.3d 376 (Montana 2004)

In re Williams, 398 F.3d 116 (1st Cir. 2005)

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

In re Wright, 310 A.2d 1 (Vt. 1973)

Jaskiewicz v. Mossinghoff, 822 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir.

Mackler Productions. v. Cohen, 146 F.3d 126 (2nd

Cir. 1998)

Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U.S. 181 (1976)

Matter of Capoccia, 453 N.E.2d 497 (N.Y. 1983)

Matter of Michaels, 75 P.3d 950 (Wash. 2003)

Matter of Weinstock, 733 N.E.2d 1016 (N.Y. 2002)

Matter of Weinstock, 740 N.Y.S.2d 128 (N.Y. App.

Nicholas v. Tucker, 114 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 1997)

O’Mearas Case, 834 A.2d 233 (N.H. 2003)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

O'Reilly v. Law Society, 24 NSWLR 202 (New South

Wales Supreme Court 1988)

Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869)

People v. Regan, 871 P.2d 1184 (Colo. 1994)

Razatos v. Colorado Supreme Court, 746 F.2d 1429

(10th Cir. 1994) 3

Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971)

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia., 403 U.S. 29 (1971)

Sacher v. Association of the Bar of the City of New

York, 347 U.S. 388 (1954)

Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991)

Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975)

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

Schneiderman v. U.S., 320 U.S. 118 (1943)

Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232

Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917) 10, 25, 26

Simcushi v. Saeli, 377 N.E.2d 713 (N.Y. 1978) .....-..00:.000 13

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958)

Stanley v. Board of Professional Responsibility, 640

S.W.2d 210 (Tenn. 1882)

Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 (1981)

Supreme Court v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988)

Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974)

Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278 (1957)

Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948)........00..0 eee 22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ~— Continued

Page

Walker v. Weinstock, 658 N.Y.S.2d 167 (N.Y. Sup.

CE aA CEN TIE) ssvscesncsivvecssevsuntigiconcerivacivestis 3, 4, 6

Weinstock v. Weinstock, 678 N.Y.S.2d 349 (New York

Pees, TE ss veh icine Ginn conevscdsinnutoiateaverssctabeveys 3, 4, 5,6

Weiss v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 633 A.2d 282

TE |: SERGE Ma Rca ape STOR IS Ae ECR NENTS Pa ONPG EPO 16, 23.

Wilner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 373

BF, eS occas ei ev ithe 10

Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971)......... 8, 10

Woodbdy v. INS, 385: U.S. 276 (1966)... .....kccciesccccccenrsesoorses 12

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

PPEOEe Fe ee CE io ii ico ieee ed 1

xe KB.

TS ey BRE ERI DOOME SPOTS AT Ao CEASED NSS SUED CAEN RE 2

en Ry ge Gs EIS RSET aA Rn ats Pee eS A ARRAY Ri ae EES Ras Se aD 2

STATUTES AND RULES

Se EF aia, Se MO cack cad ccikc dhhceans cud poas obicuidsc ip cokvatinhasssaviowiceedi aac Hs 20

ee Ricks ote aoc ee ae cee 1

Rule 18(C) of the ABA Model Rules for Lawyer

Disciplinary Enforcement ...........005cccccccevecsesccscareessssecees 18

San Ue Oe A sa kc sees dav oda acc bees 6

Rule V(A) of the Rules of Federal Disciplinary

ene SERS ARSON SE ae OSE RAO G | OOS UDO D I RPAAET Ent OEP 8,18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Sir William R. Anson, The Law and Custom of

the Constitution, Pt. 2, 2d ed. (London: Henry

I Be icv sini God ocd scsi Mi easitdcabibedprecdcanc on 18

BLACK’sS LAW DICTIONARY (7th ed. 1999) .........0.. cee eee 13

Chief Judge Henry J. Friendly, Some Kind of

Hearing, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267 (1975)............0..... 11, 19

Lawyer’s Responsibilities and Lawyer Discipline,

ROT PIMEY: Ka. BOW: TOES CGD ovis nsec cccsessin cbiceasvecsinnes’s 20