Respondent Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In re Teitelbaum

ee

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Qhetonen Trernuy AL DP. 195s.

No. 376.

¢

itt \LATTER. OF

ABRATLAM TEITELBAUM, ax Arrorses.

: } Prehatroney

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR’ WRIT |

OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF

ILLINOIS.

CianbES Leviton, prise,

| YO South duaSalle Street,

(hicaye 3, Tilinois,

Heretofore appearing as amieus curiae

in the Supreme Court of [hinois for

the Board of Managers and the Com

Inittee on Girtevaneces of The ©hieave

Bar Assoctation, Sitti as Comins

Seners of the Supreme Court oof

Pdineis under Rule Oo

"hE OUR HORF @eekee Fe arse COmMPeRY, be Caeeo

i

INDEX.

s PAGE

Oe ee a er en ee 2

» The Basis for Jurisdiction ........ Se ae see

. Questions Presented: °

(1) Has the petitioner set up any right, title, privi-

lege or immunity under the Federal Constitu-

SE Naa R AUK RA Reece eu reed c cana aca r ka es 3

(2) Will the Supreme Court of the United States

take jurisdietion over a judgment involving a

question peeulidrly of state law? ... 000 4..5.. a

Argument : . .

1 The Petitioner Has Not Set Up Any Right, .

Title, Privilege or Immunity Under the Federal

POI ok bs cadets Vixdaeeee ea Pere ee a

Il. The Question Below Is One Peculiarly Involv-

NY crak Auadc ci vekcan che cenccus. 6

lll. Petitioner’s Petition ‘Is Frivolous and Vexa-

OWS ...... ‘Seasce RENCE TTT wea atgas e's terme. Tt

vuelusion : ee TT eCres Te ee ae ; , a ee a peaccas be

\

b> |

Supreme Court of the United States

-Octoser Term, A. D. 1958.

No. 376

Ix THE MATTER OF -

ABRAHAM TEITELB AU M, an ATTORNEY,

Petitioner.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT.

OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME °' en OF

ILLINOIS.

(omes now Charles Leviton, heretofore ‘appearing as

vicus curiae in-the matter of Abraham Teitelbaum, an

attorney, petitioner, the opinion of which. is reported in

‘Ill? 2d 586, and says that a rev iew on writ of certiorari

‘ould-not be granted for the followi ing reasons:

1. There is no special or important reason therefor, as

‘quired by Rule 19 of this Court.

‘ The petitioner in the: Court below raised no question

wer the Federal Constitution and the matters and things

‘wre presented were not within the contemplation of

Rule 19, ‘

in view of the fact that the petition. for certiorari does

‘comply with the requisites of Rule 19 of this Court, and.

an effort to bring order out of chaos, the undersigned

tes the following suggestions, in as informal a manner |

a 2 _

as possible, so that it wy be sanity apparent that the pe

tion is frivolous in it# nature and the questions praise

require no formal or extensive ‘briefing.

“1. THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW.

The proceedings below were brought’ under the y

visions of Rule 59 of the Rules of the Supreme Court

Ilinois, which provides for the appointment of Coma

| “wioners of the Court to make investigations concern

practices of attorneys at law whielt tend to defeat *)

administration of justice or to bring the courts and

legal profession: <uto disrepute. This rule in most respec’

is ‘not materially different from the Rules of’ Court te

Disciplinary Proceedings adopted by the House of Delegars

of the American Bar Association on February 21 1

The Rule provides, among other things, thidt the Cor

missioners, if action: by the Supreme Court of Illinois

recommended, shall make report. to the Court of cone

sions of fact and law concerning a complaint, answer av

proof; that if after the report is filed the respon dent’

exceptions; a member of«the bar shall be .design rated *

file such certificates of proof, additional abstracts an

briefs. as may be necessary fully to advise the Court-

support of the report of the Commissioners. An amc

curiae has’ been ‘designated in each instance in these cas

since 1933 when the system of reports by Commissions

was first adopted, andthe undersigned has so, gneve :

in proceedings originating before the Conunittee on, Gre

ances of The, Chiecayo. Bar Association as Commissin

of the Supreme Court of. Illinois, sinee 1935, mel i

The undersigned has filed with the Clerk the follow:

portions of the reeord before the Supreme Court of Illi

properly certified by the Clerk of that Court:

(1) The report of the C ommissioners.

a ro

(2) ‘The objections filed by the. respondent to the-report.:

(3) The.exceptions to the report, filed by the respond-

ent in the — Court of Illinois, ~

(4) Brief, ‘and Argument of ‘Respondent. |

* 49) Additionat Abstract of Record, filed -by the under-

signed, Kare ‘

An inspection of the objections of the respondent in the

Supreme Court of Illinois, his brief and argument; and

his petition for rehearing, fails to disclose the bringing

lefore the State Court of any Federal question.

. 2. THE BASIS FOR 2 JURIEDIOTION, .

The jurisdiction, if any, of this Court may -be invoked

under Title 28 of. the Judicial Code, Section 1257.

The petitioner has mentioned that jurisdiction is also

invoked ‘funder the Due Process Clause and Equal Protee-

tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment td the Constitu-

. tion of the United States,’’ and has also claimed that ‘the

Applicability of théiF'ull Faith and Credit Clause $s also of.

tliajor importance.’?

No contentions based upon these constitutional gr ounds:

were ev er presented to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

é

3. QUESTIONS PRESENTED. a

(1) Has the petitioner set up any ‘right, title, —

_ vr immunity under the Federal Constitution?

An inspection, of tlie record shows that the petitioner in

‘he coart below raised no question under the Federal Con-

‘itution, -His answer to.the complaint (Report, pp: 3-5;

_ Abstract of Record, pp. 5-38), is: completely devoid of any

“‘ider of an issue involving the Federal Constitution. His

‘jections (Abstract, pp. 39-43) and. his exceptions (Ab-

“raet, pp. 69-75), his brief and argument and his petition

°°

’

4

.

for.rehearing, likewise have failed to raise any quitiion

under the Federal Constitution. .

The petitioner cannot raise Federal questions here whe

he did not raise them in the Supreme Court of Hlinois,

Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U. S. 275, 50 L: Ed. ley

(2) Will the Supreme Court of the United States tak

instalation over a judgnient involving a question peculiar)

of state law? . : ,

The mere. fact that the decision below may have bee

erroneous does not confer juriadiction upon the Court. Th.

proposition is elementary. The fact that a Federal Cour

may have decided that respondent's conviction of 4 Fevlgra’

crime did not involve moral turpitude, does not preci

the Supreme Court of Illinois from passing upon the effec

of such a conviction. Even where practice before the

Court is concerned, this Court has held that it will ne

hesitate to uphold the diseipliné of an attorney, wher —

character requisite for membershtp in the bar®is lackinz.

in the absenée of some grave reason to the contrary.

In re Isserman, 345 U.S. 286, pp. 288, 28!

*Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, pp. 50, 51.

McCallum ?- Board of Managers and Gruvar

Committee of Chicago Bar Association, 326U.>

689.

Bute v. People of the State. of Minors, 423 '.8

640, p. 659, 68 S. Ct.*763. .

Er Parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, pp. 271, 20.

Tinkoff v United States, 212 F. 2d 1s, pp. Vee

- Phipps v. Wilson, 186 F. 2d 748, p. 752.

Mitchell v. Greenough, 100 F. 2d 184, pp. Ts.

Central Lanil Company v. Laidley, 0 US.)

p. 112. ia |

The Petitioner Has Not Set Up Any Right, Title, Privilege

or Immunity Under the Federal Constitution.

Nowhere in the record can any’ contention be. found

‘hal any part of the Federal Constitation was violated.

The Judicial Code, Title 28, Section 1257, elearly pro- —

vides that it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of

the United States by certiorari to certify for review and

deterntination any cause wherein a final judgment or decree

a> heen rendered by the highest court of a state in which

4 cision could be had, where *‘any title, right, privilege ;

rT immunity “is specially set up or claimed under: the

Vonstitufion, treatios or statuten of, or commission held i

#.: authority exercised under, the United States.’ here

wing no such right set up or Gaimed, there ix nothing for

‘his Court to review. r

+ In Hulbert ¥. Chicago, 202 US. 275, 50 L. Ed. 1026, the

‘ourt held that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the

“alutory provision in setting up a right under the Con-

‘titution of the U nited States; that there was no evidence

6 the record to-show that the decision of either the trial

“art or the Supreme Court of Illinois, whose judgment Was °

wstioned, was invoked by plaintiff in error upon a right

aimed under the Constitution of the U nited States: The

nt of error was therefore dismissed. Thix rule is so

‘mentary and of such long standing shat, no further

<ussion of the issues involved would ‘seem necessary.

@

” ae nn ;

II.

The Question Below Is One Peculiarly Involving State Law

As the Court said in In re Isserman, 345 U.S. 286 \y

288) : . F .

**Disbarment* by a state does not automatics!

disbar members of our bar, but this Court will,

the absence of some grave reason. to the contran

follow the finding of the state that the charac’

erequisite for membership in the bar is laéking, S+/))

Radford, 248 U.S. 46 (1917).""

And (p. 289): ‘

“There is no vested right in an individual to pra

tice law. Rather there isa. right’ in’ the Court.’

protect itself, and. hence society, as an instrument |

justice.’ :

In Selling v. eblaad, 243 UL S. 46, Radford, whe ks

been originally a member of ‘the bar of the State of Mie

gan and then had been adnytted to the Supreme Cour

"of the United States, was respondent i in an action to dist:

him: from the Supreme Court of the United: States on*

basis of an opinion and order of disbarment entered |

the Supreme Court of Michigan. The Court held that

had no, authority to-re-examine or reverse as. acreview:

court the action of the Supreme Court of Michigan jnd-

barring Radford. As to whether or not Radford she

continue as a member of the Supreme Court of the (' nite.

States, the Court held that it would recognize the: cond

created by the judgment of the state court unless, fr

an intrinsic consideration of the state record, one or «

of the following conditions should appear (p. ol):

“1. That the state procedure from wait of h"

or opportunity to be heard was wanting in die

cess; 2, that there was sueh an infirmity of preot

to’ facts found,to have established the want of

ir

a

7

" private and professional character as to give rise toa

_ ¢lear conviction on our part that we could hot consist-

- ently with our-duty accept as final the conclusion on that

‘ subject; or 3,’that some other grave reason existed

which should convince us that to allow the natural con-

sequences of the judgment to have their effect would

conflict with the duty which tests upon us not to dishar

\exvept upon the conyfetion that, under the principles

of-right-and* justice, we were constrained: so lo dow”.

¥

Similar questions were raised by William Wallace Me-

Callum, who was disbarred by the Supreme Court of [linois

in tere McCallum, 391 Tl. 400, ane whose appeal was

dismissed for want of a substantial Federal question, in

MeCallum'y., Board of Managers and Grievance Committee

t Chicago Bar Association, 326°. 8. 689,

In Bute v. People of the State of Tlinois, 333 U.S. G40,

ihe Court held .(p. 659), that even in a criminal case ‘the’

» procedure followed:by Hlinois should not be held to Violate

the standard of permissible process of JaW broadly. recog:

uized by the Fourteenth Amendmént, unless the [linois

procedure violates ‘the very essence lof a seheme of ordered

liberty’ and that to continue it would ‘vidlate a“ pringiple’

of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of

our people as to be ranked as fundamental." °°

In Ex Parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, there Was brought into

uestion in’a petition for mandamus filed in the Supreme .

Vourt of the United States, the validity of an order of a

Federal District Judge prohibiting Wall from practicing

it the bar of the District Court. The Court upheld the’

validity of. the order of the District. Court, and held that

‘he attorney had had due process, in that’ (p. 200) “due

wotice was given to the petitioner, and a trial and hearing

vas had before the court, in the manner in which proceed-

—iigsragainst attorneys, when the question iS whether they

‘tould be struck off the roll, are always conducted."!

oe?

In Tinkof’ ve United States, 212 F.2d 18, the Cour

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had before it an efor hy

‘Tinkoff to tile a petition to vacate an order de uving hb

leave to fileca petition for reinstateme ‘nt to the bar: af thy

Federal Diatriet Court. Tinkot® had been distarred

the Supreme Court of Hlinois and had been SUbseopuens

held guilty of contempt of‘ court for the aeaittonte

practice of kaw in o% ople ea rel. Chicago Bar Asoo wt

‘a. Tinkoff, 399 TIL 282, certiorari denied, 34 : SS

The Court stated (pp, 19-20) ;

‘*Secking to annnal these Orders, apprethart ons.

le PPOssessts ile ‘right’, to petition, eof san) preter?

status that the district judge Mast reeeive and.

tain his petition. Titis ix the framework on whic

hangs argument raising constitutional emestions. Ab

Justice. Vinson, when delivering the order of thet nit’

reported as Ji re Isserigai, W538, B45 VS. ost es

738. Ct. 676, 677, 97 LBA WOT, aptly Sav

8 98 There is ne rested riahe ib one ime

to practice law. Rather there isca right in the Com

& fo protect itself, and hence sociefy, as an in-trame:

of justices. That to the imlividual thisharred

ix a loss of status is incidental to the pourtiose cot *

( Court and cannot deter the Court) from jt- duty

strike from its rolls one who hats engaged in

inconsistent with the gay expected tf offiecrs

the Court.” (Italics ours.)

“Certainly that quotation goes far toward en

crowned from under appellant’. thet. | Nev

a recent concept of the license to prneties law So.

| a oY W all, 1SSZ, 107 U.S. 2 BS OO, Swi 2

Mal. 552 Pe ate

. of . - . .

“Long ago Mr. Justice Cardozo, speaking for"

Court reviewing jn ore Rouss, 1917, 221 N.Y!

N. BA. 782, 783, said: .

*Membership in the bar is a sit Se vl

‘with conditions. A fair private amd pre

character ix ome of them. Compliance with’

' Wan Cincama

*

condition is essential at the moment of admission:

but it is equally essential afterwards * * * “When.

ever the condition js broken the privilege is lost,

To refuse admistion te wh unwerthy applicant

is not to punish hin for Mist offenses. The ex:

amination inte character, like the eNamunation inte ;

learning, is merely atest of fitness. To strike

the unworthy Tawyer from the voll is Hot te ele

to the pains and pemiltioes of erime

o

In Phipps v. Wilson, ise. 2d 748, the Court said ip.

“2): . :

“The real basis for plas tials complaint seems te

be that it was the Chieree Bar Association whieh in

Vestivated the charges aszainst him and recommended

disbartvent. Plaintift Claims that the Bar Assowin

‘tion's committees were prejudiced against him. A

similar objection Wits Pisnede- amd overrated jn | an

Wi Callum, BO. IL, 400, G4 Ne pe. 24 OO, a disharmens

proceeding, The. court there peinted ont that ~ink..

103 conumnittows of the Chicago Bar Association Wave

acted as Commissioners of the Hingis Supreme Court

‘ip disciplinary proceedings brought against ittorney.

at law in Chicago, See: Rule 30 Supreme Court

Rules of Practices and Procedure, Ch. 119”. Smith Hurd i

Hl, Anno, Stat, 5 20.50 The court emphasized that

such commissioners are merely the court's agents

for the purpose of vatherintc amd reporting the evi

dence and that their recommendations are purely

advisory, The conrt said 399 Hl. at pace 418, 64 NOE

ad at page SIT: * The recommendations made are i

pirely wlvisory and this court aet~ only after an ex

amination of the evidence In thie cise, eXcept where

Wo answer is tide by respondent, and in these cases

the charges and “Upporting evidenes are eXamined

fore action is takes by this court.’

“It is signifieant that MeCallum did not file a peti-

tion for certiorari, but songlit access to the United

Mates Supreme Court hy direet appeal, attacking the

colstitutionality of Rule 39. However, the Supretive

‘ourt dismissed the appeal, holding that it did net

10 -

- ¢

raise any substantial federal question, MeCallun

Board of Managers and Grievance Committey of Che

cago Bar Assoc tation, 326 U.S. 689, 66S: Ct. 12, ‘

L. Md. 405.

“In considering w hether the procedure herein befor

the Supreme Court of Hlinois and the commission«

‘was a denial of due process, the applicable principles

authoritatively stated in Bute v. Mlinois 333 U.S. 640,

659; 68'S. Ct. 763, 773, 92 L. Ed. 986, are: ‘°° “R

here the procedure followed by THlinois should not |

held to violate the standard of permissible process o:

law broadly recognized by the Fourteenth Pad edtniens

unless the IHlinois procedur e Violates ‘the very essen

of a scheme of ordered diberty’’ and its continua:

would ‘* violate a ‘principle of justice so rooted iri.

traditions and conscivnee of our pe ople as to be rankes

as fundamental.’ ** * * *

As the amended complaint: shows that plaint.”

was apprized of the charges tiled against him, and the

“he had a redsonable @pportunity to “defend thes

against, the procedure complained against did not \

late a scheme of ordered: liberty ora deep rooted prin.

ciple of justice, In other words, we find that plain?

was not denied federal due process of Sanna

The: case of Th re.Summers, 825 US. 5610 hi as ne spplie

tion, the issue there being one which brought inte ques!

whether or not the principles of religious freedom wh

the i gg ndment ‘to the, Constitution of *

United States »Ceures against state action had been wih

lated by the denial to Sammers of the right. to pprae Hew, bi

_ In Tinois. .

In Mitchell v. ianawes 100 FY. 2d 184, the Court =3

(p. 185): ’ ,

‘*We pause here to oheerv e'that the eae te pract

law in the state court has heen held by the Supret r

Court not to be a privilege granted - by the Fede:

Constitution or laws. Bradwell v. State of Lilies.

* Wall. 130, 21 L. Ed. 442; Er parte Lockwood V4

I 16, 14 S.Ct. 1082, 38 L. Ed. 929. In Green X. Klher’

>

x

a

‘

:

: ll

8 Cir, 63 F. 308, the Cireiit Court of Appeals held

‘that the « conspiracy to deprive a lawyer of his right to

‘practice law in the-state courts Was not a —

to interfere with any right or privilege ‘granted,

cured or protected by the Constitution of the U nited

States."""° wae

In Central Land Company v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 403, this

Curt said (p. 112): .

“When the parties have been fully heard i in the regu-

lar course of judicial proceedings, - an erroneous deci-

sion of a state court does not deprive the unsuccessful

party of his property without dae process of law,

witliin the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

“of the United States.”*

f

ee

Petitioner’s Petition Is Frivolous and Vexatious.

The undersigned does hot intend at this stage of the pro-

dings to discuss the merits of the case at length or those

vcisions “of the Supreme Court of the United States and

ther Federal Courts which indicate that what respondent

vas convieted of involved moral turpitude, No ground

pears for are wersal of the decision of the Supreme Court

Illinois constitutional’or otherwise, ,

Conclusion.

It is submitted that Teitelbaum's petition for writ o

certiorari should be denied,:and that the writ should nor ss

‘ granted.

~ Respectfully submitted,

Cuartes Leviron, pro se,

29 South La Salle Street,

Chicago 3, Ilineis,

a Heretofore appearing as amicus cur

in the’ Supreme Court of Tlinsis

the Board of Managers and the Cow

mittee on Grievances of The Chicw

Bar Association, Sitting as Comms

4° aye sionefs of the Supreme Court

Illinois under Rule 59. :