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

attorneydouble jeopardy

hearingdue processdouble jeopardyrespondentcredibility

Related Cases

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 463 Pa. 472, 345 A.2d 616

Facts

John W. Campbell, Jr., an attorney with twenty years of experience, represented Charlene McIlwaine, who was under federal indictment for marijuana possession. During his representation, Campbell solicited money from McIlwaine, claiming he could 'fix' her case and suppress evidence that did not exist. After McIlwaine contacted federal authorities, Campbell was indicted for mail fraud but was acquitted. Following his acquittal, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, leading to a recommendation for disbarment.

Respondent, John W. Campbell, Jr., has practiced law for twenty years. In December 1971 he undertook to represent Charlene McIlwaine, who was then under federal indictment for possessing approximately thirty pounds of marijuana. Immediately upon accepting her case, respondent received from her a retainer of $1,000. During the course of his representation respondent informed his client that he could for a price ‘fix’ her case as he had done previously in other criminal matters. He sought and received over $4,000 to allegedly arrange the suppression of fingerprint evidence. In fact, no such evidence existed.

Issue

Whether the acquittal of an attorney in a criminal case bars subsequent disciplinary action for conduct related to that case, and whether the disciplinary rules under which he was charged are unconstitutionally vague.

Respondent took several exceptions to the proceeding below and here continues to object. Specifically, he maintains (1) that the evidence to support the recommendation of disbarment was insufficient, (2) that the commencement of proceedings after his acquittal in federal court violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, (3) that the disciplinary rules under which he was charged are unconstitutionally vague and (4) that the consolidation of the McIlwaine matter with the other unrelated violations denied him procedural due process.

Rule

Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis and do not constitute double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment. The mere acquittal of a crime does not prevent disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct based on the same acts.

Where a single act constitutes a violation of the laws of both the state and federal governments, two prosecutions, convictions and sentences are constitutionally permissible. See, e.g., Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); Commonwealth v. Mills, 447 Pa. 163, 286 A.2d 638 (1971). If two Criminal prosecutions are possible, certainly one criminal proceeding and one quasi-criminal proceeding are within permissible constitutional bounds.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that disciplinary actions serve a different purpose than criminal prosecutions, focusing on the attorney's fitness to practice law rather than punishment. The court found that Campbell's actions, including fraudulent conduct and attempts to manipulate a criminal case, warranted disbarment despite his acquittal.

In this case the Hearing Committee resolved the issue of credibility in favor of the petitioner. We perceive no reason for reversing that result. Respondent next contends that the imposition of any disciplinary sanction after his acquittal in federal court violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment where the federal prosecution and the disciplinary recommendation are based on the same evidence and arise from the same transaction. Primarily respondent premises this argument on the quasi-criminal nature of disciplinary actions, but the argument fails in both law and reason.

Conclusion

The court ordered disbarment of John W. Campbell, Jr., affirming the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board based on his unprofessional conduct.

In view of our decision in regard to consolidation, the recommendations of the petitioner for discipline in case number 32 D.B. 73 are rejected. The recommendation of petitioner for discipline in case number 26 D.B. 73 is accepted and respondent is ordered disbarred.

Who won?

The Disciplinary Board prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the recommendation for disbarment due to Campbell's fraudulent actions and lack of fitness to practice law.

Manderino, J., concurred in result.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

The Florida Bar v. Spann, 682 So.2d 1070, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S330

McIntosh v. Mills, 121 Cal.App.4th 333, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6992, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9468

Tedesco v. Mishkin, 689 F.Supp. 1327, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,900, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6970

U.S. ex rel. Simon v. Murphy, 349 F.Supp. 818

In re Discipline of Laprath, 670 N.W.2d 41, 2003 S.D. 114