From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Truong v. Committee on Grievances

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 1, 2007
No. 06-2858-cv (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-2858-cv.

November 1, 2007.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district court order is AFFIRMED.

FOR APPELLANT: Mac Truong, New York, New York.

FOR APPELLEE: N/A

PRESENT: HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, HON. BARRINGTON D. PARKER, HON. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.


Appellant Mac Truong appeals from the January 3, 2006 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.), denying Truong's motion for reconsideration of the district court's November 30, 2005 order denying his reinstatement to the roll of attorneys admitted to the bar of the Southern District of New York. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under Local Rule 1.5(c)(1) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, an attorney disciplined by any state or federal court may be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the bar of the district court. The relevant procedures are as follows:

In all cases in which any federal court or a court of any state or territory has entered an order disbarring or censuring an attorney or suspending the attorney from practice, whether or not on consent, the notice shall be served together with an order by the clerk of this court, to become effective twenty-four days after the date of service upon the attorney, disbarring or censuring the attorney or suspending the attorney from practice in this court upon terms and conditions comparable to those set forth by the other court of record. . . . Within twenty days of the date of service of [the] order, the attorney may file a motion for modification or revocation of the order. Any such motion shall set forth with specificity the facts and principles relied upon by the attorney as showing cause why a different disposition should be ordered by this court. . . . If good cause is shown to hold an evidentiary hearing, the Committee on Grievances may proceed to impose discipline or to take such other action as justice and this rule may require.

S.D.N.Y. Loc. R. 1.5(d)(1). The Local Rules further provide that:

[D]iscipline may be imposed unless the attorney concerned establishes by clear and convincing evidence (i) that there was such an infirmity of proof of misconduct by the attorney as to give rise to the clear conviction that this court could not consistent with its duty accept as final the conclusion of the other court, or (ii) that the procedure resulting in the investigation or discipline of the attorney by the other court was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process, or (iii) that the imposition of discipline by this court would result in grave injustice.

S.D.N.Y. Loc. R. 1.5(d)(2).

Contrary to Truong's argument, he was neither automatically disbarred nor denied due process in his district court disbarment proceeding. Specifically, following Truong's disbarment by the State of New York, the district court issued an order, on August 11, 2005, directing the clerk of the court to strike Truong from the roll of practicing attorneys in the district court, effective September 4, 2005, unless, by August 31, 2005, Truong showed cause as to why he should not be stricken. Truong had the opportunity to, and did, file a response, in the form of an affirmation. The district court explicitly found that Truong's submission "failed to provide the requisite clear and convincing evidence why reciprocal disbarment should not be imposed." Truong subsequently submitted another affirmation and two more motions setting forth his arguments; the district court reviewed all of his submissions and denied them, holding that his arguments had no merit. Under the circumstances, the district court provided Truong with ample opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be disbarred.

Finally, Truong's arguments that there was no evidence supporting his disbarment in the district court, and that the district court erred in relying on the New York Appellate Division's disbarment order, are without merit. Although Truong continues to argue that the Third Circuit's orders voided the New York Appellate Division's disbarment order, we independently rejected that argument in Truong's disbarment proceedings, docketed in this Court under 07-9006-am, and we reiterate that Truong continues to misconstrue and misstate both the procedural history and legal effect of the Third Circuit's orders. Truong's additional arguments in his supplemental brief to this Court are similarly without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.


Summaries of

Truong v. Committee on Grievances

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 1, 2007
No. 06-2858-cv (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2007)
Case details for

Truong v. Committee on Grievances

Case Details

Full title:Mac Truong, Appellant, v. Committee on Grievances for the United States…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Nov 1, 2007

Citations

No. 06-2858-cv (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2007)

Citing Cases

Truong v. Committee

We rejected precisely that argument when we affirmed the order of the United States District Court for the…