Centifanti v. Nix

865 F.2d 1422 (3rd Cir. 1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the ultimate decisionmaker on matters of attorney discipline. The Disciplinary Board has the authority to appoint three or more hearing committees within each disciplinary district and to assign formal charges to a hearing committee. The Board is also authorized 'to review the conclusions of hearing committees with respect to formal charges and to prepare and forward its own findings and recommendations, together with the record of the proceeding before the hearing committee, to the Supreme Court.' Hearing committees are authorized to conduct hearings into formal charges of misconduct upon assignment by the Board, to submit their conclusions (together with the record of the hearing) to the Board, and to review and approve or modify recommendations by Disciplinary Counsel for dismissals, informal admonitions, private reprimands and institution of formal charges. Rule 218(a) provides that 'no attorney suspended for a period exceeding three months . . . may resume practice until reinstated by order of the Supreme Court after petition therefor pursuant to these rules.' Rule 218(b) provides that, with exceptions that are not germane here, 'a person who has been disbarred may not apply for reinstatement until the expiration of at least five years from the effective date of the disbarment . . . .' Rule 218(c)(6) states: 'The Supreme Court shall review the record of the hearing committee and Disciplinary Board and enter an appropriate order. Unless otherwise ordered, matters arising under this rule will be considered without oral argument.' In 1980, by order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, P was retroactively suspended from the practice of law for five years, resulting from a plea of nolo contendere to two charges of aggravated assault on his wife in 1976. On August 10, 1983, having successfully completed his criminal probation, P filed a petition for reinstatement and the Board unanimously recommended that P's petition for reinstatement be granted. The hearing committee reviewed additional evidence and again unanimously recommended reinstatement. On review of the record, the Disciplinary Board issued an opinion recommending P's reinstatement by a vote of eight to one. P filed an application for leave to file a brief in support of his petition for reinstatement with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The court denied the brief and the petition for reinstatement. There was no opinion and no statement of reasons. P filed a complaint in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. P alleged a violation of due process and equal protection under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court dismissed P's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.