No. 24-36

Spencer Freeman Smith v. State Bar of California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2024-07-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: attorney-suspension civil-rights constitutional-rights cross-examination due-process ex-parte-statements hearing-delay notice state-bar-discipline whistleblower
Key Terms:
ERISA DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for the State Bar of California to place an attorney on suspension without a hearing for four years before conducting a post-suspension hearing. Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979)?

Whether it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for the State Bar of California to publicly recommend an attorney be disbarred and then wait three years to submit its final recommendation for discipline. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 549 (1985)?

Whether it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for the State Bar of California, to base its disbarment recommendation upon the ex parte statements of witnesses whom the accused attorney had not been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine. Willner u. Committee on Character, 373 U.S. 96, 103 (1963); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269, (1970)?

Did the State Bar fail to provide Petitioner with adequate notice of the facts and circumstances supporting disbarment? In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968).

Question Presented (AI Summary)

due-process-clause

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-08-23
Supplemental brief of petitioner Spencer Freeman Smith filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-08-12
Waiver of right of respondent State Bar of California to respond filed.
2024-07-03

Attorneys

Spencer Freeman Smith
Spencer Freeman Smith — Petitioner
State Bar of California
Brady Richard DewarThe State Bar of California, Respondent