Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 3 - Order Of Disbarment
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 3 - Order Of Disbarment as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 767
- Pages: 3
Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC
Document 3
Filed 07/27/2009
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 11 In the Disciplinary Matter of 12 13
RICHARD ISAAC FINE
14
California State Bar 15 #55259 16 17
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO. MC-09-129 ABC ORDER OF DISBARMENT
On March 13, 2009, Richard Isaac Fine (“Fine”) was disbarred from the
18 practice of law by the Supreme Court of California. On May 27, 2009, this Court 19 issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) as to why Fine should not be disbarred from 20 practice before this Court, pursuant to Rule 83-3.1.9 of the Local Rules for the 21 Central District of California. 22
The Court received a response to its OSC on June 25, 2009. In the Response,
23 Fine argues that his disbarment by the California Supreme Court was improper. He 24 also states that he is continuing to challenge that disbarment, noting that he has filed 25 a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. 26
To avoid suspension from the Bar of this Court, an attorney suspended from
27 the State Bar of California must “set forth facts establishing one or more of the 28 following: (a) the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or 1
Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC
Document 3
Filed 07/27/2009
Page 2 of 3
1 opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (b) there was 2 such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to a clear 3 conviction that the Court should not accept as final the other jurisdiction’s 4 conclusion(s) on that subject; (c) imposition of like discipline would result in a grave 5 injustice; or (d) other substantial reasons exist so as to justify not accepting the other 6 jurisdiction’s conclusions.” L.R. 83-3.1.9. 7
The Court has reviewed Fine’s response to the OSC, and finds that he has not
8 satisfied any of the exceptions set forth in Local Rule 83-3.1.9. He has not set forth 9 facts to show that this Court should not accept the conclusions of the California State 10 Bar Court on the matter of his disbarment. He received sufficient notice and 11 opportunity to be heard; there was not such an “infirmity of proof” before the State 12 Bar Court as to create a “clear conviction” that that Court’s conclusions should not 13 be accepted; disbarment from this Court would not result in a “grave injustice”; and 14 no facts to support any other convincing reason for disregarding the State Bar Court’s 15 findings have been presented. 16
In addition, Fine failed to comply with Local Rule 83-3.1.9 in one further
17 respect. At the time the response to his OSC was filed, Fine was required to provide 18 a certified copy of the entire record from the State Bar Court, which he has not done. 19 Nor has he met his “burden of persuading the Court that less than the entire record” 20 is sufficient. L.R. 83-3.1.9. However, the Opinion and Order of the Review 21 Department of the State Bar Court is publicly available from the California State 22 Bar’s website, and that Order fully supports this Court’s determination that the 23 substantive showing required by Local Rule 83-3.1.9 has not been made in this case. 24
IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that Fine is disbarred from the
25 practice of law in this Court pursuant to Rule 83-3.1.9 of the Local Rules for the 26 Central District of California. 27
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Fine shall be reinstated upon proof of his
28 reinstatement as an active member in good standing with the State Bar of California. 2
Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC
1
Document 3
Filed 07/27/2009
Page 3 of 3
An attorney registered to use the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System
2 (“ECF”) who is disbarred by this Court will not have access to file documents 3 electronically until the attorney has been reinstated by the State Bar of California and 4 reinstated to the Bar of this Court. 5
This Order is being served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 to the
6 current address of the attorney as on file with the State Bar of California. 7 8 9
DATE:
July 27, 2009
10 11 12
_______________________________
13
Audrey B. Collins Chief United States District Judge
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
Document 3
Filed 07/27/2009
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 11 In the Disciplinary Matter of 12 13
RICHARD ISAAC FINE
14
California State Bar 15 #55259 16 17
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO. MC-09-129 ABC ORDER OF DISBARMENT
On March 13, 2009, Richard Isaac Fine (“Fine”) was disbarred from the
18 practice of law by the Supreme Court of California. On May 27, 2009, this Court 19 issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) as to why Fine should not be disbarred from 20 practice before this Court, pursuant to Rule 83-3.1.9 of the Local Rules for the 21 Central District of California. 22
The Court received a response to its OSC on June 25, 2009. In the Response,
23 Fine argues that his disbarment by the California Supreme Court was improper. He 24 also states that he is continuing to challenge that disbarment, noting that he has filed 25 a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. 26
To avoid suspension from the Bar of this Court, an attorney suspended from
27 the State Bar of California must “set forth facts establishing one or more of the 28 following: (a) the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or 1
Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC
Document 3
Filed 07/27/2009
Page 2 of 3
1 opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (b) there was 2 such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to a clear 3 conviction that the Court should not accept as final the other jurisdiction’s 4 conclusion(s) on that subject; (c) imposition of like discipline would result in a grave 5 injustice; or (d) other substantial reasons exist so as to justify not accepting the other 6 jurisdiction’s conclusions.” L.R. 83-3.1.9. 7
The Court has reviewed Fine’s response to the OSC, and finds that he has not
8 satisfied any of the exceptions set forth in Local Rule 83-3.1.9. He has not set forth 9 facts to show that this Court should not accept the conclusions of the California State 10 Bar Court on the matter of his disbarment. He received sufficient notice and 11 opportunity to be heard; there was not such an “infirmity of proof” before the State 12 Bar Court as to create a “clear conviction” that that Court’s conclusions should not 13 be accepted; disbarment from this Court would not result in a “grave injustice”; and 14 no facts to support any other convincing reason for disregarding the State Bar Court’s 15 findings have been presented. 16
In addition, Fine failed to comply with Local Rule 83-3.1.9 in one further
17 respect. At the time the response to his OSC was filed, Fine was required to provide 18 a certified copy of the entire record from the State Bar Court, which he has not done. 19 Nor has he met his “burden of persuading the Court that less than the entire record” 20 is sufficient. L.R. 83-3.1.9. However, the Opinion and Order of the Review 21 Department of the State Bar Court is publicly available from the California State 22 Bar’s website, and that Order fully supports this Court’s determination that the 23 substantive showing required by Local Rule 83-3.1.9 has not been made in this case. 24
IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that Fine is disbarred from the
25 practice of law in this Court pursuant to Rule 83-3.1.9 of the Local Rules for the 26 Central District of California. 27
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Fine shall be reinstated upon proof of his
28 reinstatement as an active member in good standing with the State Bar of California. 2
Case 2:09-mc-00129-ABC
1
Document 3
Filed 07/27/2009
Page 3 of 3
An attorney registered to use the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System
2 (“ECF”) who is disbarred by this Court will not have access to file documents 3 electronically until the attorney has been reinstated by the State Bar of California and 4 reinstated to the Bar of this Court. 5
This Order is being served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 to the
6 current address of the attorney as on file with the State Bar of California. 7 8 9
DATE:
July 27, 2009
10 11 12
_______________________________
13
Audrey B. Collins Chief United States District Judge
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
Related Documents
Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 3 - Order Of Disbarment
June 2020 7
Order Disbarment
June 2020 3
Dreier Disbarment Order
June 2020 4
Disbarment Complaint.pdf
May 2020 3More Documents from "amy ocampo"
