Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneyappeal
jurisdictionattorneyappealgood faithrespondent

Related Cases

In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, 264 F.3d 201, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,521, 50 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1058
View Case »
Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624
View Case »
F.D.I.C. v. O’Melveny & Myers, 969 F.2d 744, 61 USLW 2033
View Case »
Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 139 N.J. 472, 655 A.2d 1354, 63 USLW 2641
View Case »
Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 13 Tex.Bankr.Ct.Rep. 1
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Solerwitz, 575 A.2d 287

Facts

The case arose from the actions of attorney Jack B. Solerwitz, who represented Federal air traffic controllers dismissed during an illegal strike. His law firm filed numerous appeals with the Federal Circuit, many of which were deemed frivolous. The Federal Circuit had previously sanctioned him for these actions, ordering him to pay damages and suspending him for one year. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the Federal Circuit's findings to determine if reciprocal discipline should be imposed.

This proceeding arises under Section 18(2) of Rule XI, which deals with the imposition of reciprocal discipline on members of our Bar who have been disciplined for attorney misconduct in other jurisdictions. On June 17, 1988, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (hereinafter “Federal Circuit”) suspended Respondent for one year from practice before that tribunal.

Issue

Whether the misconduct found by the Federal Circuit warranted reciprocal discipline in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and if so, what the appropriate sanction should be.

Whether the misconduct found by the Federal Circuit warranted reciprocal discipline in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and if so, what the appropriate sanction should be.

Rule

The court applied the Disciplinary Rules prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and the knowing advancement of unwarranted claims, as outlined in DR 1–102(A)(5) and DR 7–102(A)(2).

Specifically, the Board concluded that the respondent's misconduct, consisting of filing a series of frivolous appeals, repeatedly violating court orders, and consistently failing to follow appropriate procedural rules and otherwise interfering with the Federal Circuit's work, constituted violations of DR 1–102(A)(5) (engaging in the conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and DR 7–102(A)(2) (knowingly advancing unwarranted claims).

Analysis

The court found that Solerwitz's actions, including filing frivolous appeals and violating court orders, constituted misconduct under the applicable Disciplinary Rules. The court determined that the Federal Circuit's factual findings were binding and that the misconduct exceeded zealous advocacy, thus justifying disciplinary action. However, the court concluded that a public censure was more appropriate than a one-year suspension, given the context and nature of the misconduct.

In the instant case, we are bound by the Federal Circuit's factual determinations that Respondent filed a series of frivolous appeals, repeatedly violated standing court orders, consistently failed to follow appropriate procedural rules and otherwise interfered with the conduct of the Federal Circuit's work—all in a manner that exceeded both zealous advocacy and good faith argument for a change in the law.

Conclusion

The court ordered that Jack B. Solerwitz be publicly censured for his misconduct, rather than suspended for one year as previously imposed by the Federal Circuit.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that respondent, Jack B. Solerwitz, be publicly censured.

Who won?

The Board on Professional Responsibility prevailed as the court adopted its recommendation for public censure, finding that the misconduct warranted disciplinary action but not as severe as a suspension.

For the reasons discussed below, the Board recommends that Respondent be disciplined by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, but that a less stringent sanction than suspension for one year be imposed.

You must be