Unpublished Disposition, 917 F.2d 28 (9th Cir. 1982)

MEMORANDUM^* 

On July 7, 1987, this court ordered respondent Martin Louis Stanley ("Respondent") to show cause why he should not be suspended or disbarred from practice in the Ninth Circuit following his suspension by the Supreme Court of California.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by the state of California on February 5, 1982. Between July 1983 and January 1986, Respondent committed professional and ethical violations in at least thirty-four (34) separate matters. Respondent was also convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude on three separate occasions.

The Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent from practice on April 5, 1990. Stanley v. State Bar of California, 268 Cal. Rptr. 183 (1990).

The right to practice before the Ninth Circuit derives from admission in good standing before another court.

An attorney who has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, or the highest court of a state, or another United States Court of Appeal, or a United States District Court ..., and who is of good moral character, is eligible for admission to the court of appeals.

Fed. R. App. P. 46(a).

Similarly, disbarment from practice in another court subjects an attorney to disbarment or suspension here.

When it is shown to the court that any member of its bar has been ... disbarred from practice in any other court of record, or has been guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of the court, the member will be subject to ... disbarment by the court.

Fed. R. App. P. 46(b).

Disbarment of an attorney by a state court is not conclusively binding on a federal court. Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 282 (1956); In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the state court's determination is entitled to great deference. See Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1916); In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d at 1188. Our review of the record relied upon by the California Supreme Court provides no reason not to accord that court's decision great deference.

For more than four years, Respondent has been drug and alcohol free, and has been actively involved in community and volunteer work. In particular, Respondent has devoted much time and effort to a variety of groups assisting other lawyers and judges to recover from substance abuse. Respondent has also attempted to make restitution to the clients and others who were affected by his misdeeds.

Respondent's conduct in reformation of his past misdeeds is commendable. However, his recent conduct does not entitle us to ignore or discount his professional and ethical violations.

Disbarment is a punishment imposed on an attorney, which is designed to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession, to maintain high professional standards, and to preserve public trust in the legal profession. See Stanley, 268 Cal. Rptr. at 191; see also In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550 (1968). In light of the severity of his past conduct, the California Supreme Court determined that Respondent's period of rehabilitation was insufficient in length to justify a lesser punishment than disbarment in order to protect the public. See Stanley, 268 Cal. Rptr. at 191. We cannot disagree.

Respondent Martin Louis Stanley is hereby disbarred from the practice of law before the Ninth Circuit.