[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

wrongfulness of the conduct and change in behavior over a period of time since the criminal activity.
3. Baird v. St. Bar of Ariz., 401 U.S. 1 (1971).
4. W. Bradley Wendel, Free Speech for Lawyers, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 305 (2001). Since being denied bar
admission, Hale has been convicted of soliciting the murder of a federal judge. Natasha Korecki & Frank Main,
Supremacist Gets 40 Yrs.; Hale Given Maximum for Trying to Have Judge Murdered, Chicago Sun-Times (Apr. 7, 2005).
5. In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973).
6. Piper v. S. Ct. of N.H., 470 U.S. 274 (1985).
7. See, e.g., Parnell v. Ct. of App. of W. V., 926 F. Supp. 570 (N.D. W. Va. 1996) (lawyer admitted in the state must
maintain office in the state to qualify as “responsible local attorney” to support another lawyer’s pro hac vice admission).
1. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968) (lawyer entitled to notice of charge in disbarment proceeding). The adequacy
of due process in a state disciplinary proceeding also determines whether a federal court can impose reciprocal discipline
for the same conduct without plenary review. See Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917); Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 550; In
re Edelstein, 214 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2000).
2. Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) (lawyer cannot be disbarred for properly invoking the Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination in disciplinary proceeding). A federal court has added the constitutional right to
clear and convincing evidence; In re Medrano, 956 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 1992).
3. Courts also rely on their inherent power to discipline lawyers, e.g., In re Lehtinen, 564 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2009)
(bankruptcy courts have inherent power to suspend lawyers from practicing before the court). Federal agencies may
require additional admission and disciplinary standards. See, e.g., FTC Rules of Practice, 16. C.F.R. Parts 0-5.
4. E.g., State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Auer, 376 P. 3d 243 (Ok. 2016) (lawyer subject to reciprocal disbarment
due to flagrant unauthorized practice in two states where he was not admitted to practice); Gadda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d
934 (2004) (federal law does not preempt state regulation of lawyers and allows for disbarment by the state of
California, and reciprocal disbarment by federal board of immigration appeals, as well as Ninth Circuit).
5. ABA Model R. for Law. Disc. Enforcement, R. 19, 20 (2002).
6. See, e.g., N.Y. Rule of Prof. Conduct 5.1 (2016).
7. ABA Model R. for Law. Disc. Enforcement, R. 1(A) (2002).
8. MR 8.3.
9. E.g., Atty. Grievance Comm’n v. Young, 124 A.3d 210 (Md. 2015) (lawyer disbarred for falsely holding himself
out as a licensed home improvement contractor).
10. Lisi v. Several Attys., 596 A.2d 313 (R.I. 1991).
11. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 490.5 (2017); Fla. R. Prof. Conduct 4-8.4(h) (2017).
12. ABA, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standards 2.1-2.8 (1992). Standard 3.0 lists four factors to be
considered by a court: the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the actual or potential injury caused by the
misconduct, and the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors.
13. Disc. Counsel v. Levine, 2006 WL 3063422 (Haw.)
14. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Busch, 919 P.2d 1114 (Ok. 1996) (Americans with Disabilities Act does not
prevent professional discipline if conduct is not causally connected to disability or if lawyer is not otherwise able to
practice law despite his disability).
4. The Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, Inc. paid board of directors consisted of Gallion, Mills, and
Cunningham.
5. The five members voting against permanent disbarment instead voted to suspend Respondent from the practice of
law for five years as recommended by the Trial Commissioner.
64