Legal Opinion · Concurrence

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

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 30, 1975No. 75-1029Published

1ConcurrenceRosenn, Circuit Judge

I join in the majority opinion. I write to emphasize what I believe should be the proper standard for federal disciplinary action based upon a record compiled in state proceedings.

Each federal court has a broad independent power to discipline members of its bar, initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings, and impose sanctions predicated upon the record it has compiled. See Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 281, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1 L.Ed.2d 1342 (1957). The independence of a district court acting in such fashion circumscribes our authority to review its disciplinary actions. See Ex parte…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Theard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Ex Parte BurrSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  5. Selling v. RadfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1917

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API