After review, but without a hearing or the taking of additional evidence, a three-judge Disciplinary Panel of the district court denied the application for reinstatement. See In re Mattox, 567 F. Supp. 415 (D.Colo. 1983). Mattox learned of the action when she received a copy of the panel's order.
In denying Petitioner's application for readmission, we imply no disrespect to the Minnesota Supreme Court. As noted by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in In re Mattox, 567 F. Supp. 415 (D.Colo. 1983), courts of limited jurisdiction have a slightly different concern in maintaining discipline than a state bar authorizing the general practice of law: While both courts have an abiding concern for the maintenance of the highest standards of ethics and professional responsibility on the part of those attorneys who comprise the bar, the Supreme Court of Colorado must concern itself as well with the rights of members of its bar to sustain a livelihood.
Such behavior, in a manner of speaking, must be second nature to them.In re Suspension of Mattox, 567 F. Supp. 415, 417 (D.Colo. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 758 F.2d 1362 (10th Cir. 1985). Mr. Pollock has not conducted himself in a manner consistent with this standard.