650 F.3d 202
2d Cir.2011Background
- Appellant, plaintiff in SDNY case, seeks review of district court’s Committee on Grievances’ January 27, 2010 decision not to discipline Attorney 1.
- The decision took the form of a letter informing that no disciplinary action was warranted.
- Appellant also alleges misconduct by Attorney 2, unclear if new or previously presented to district court.
- Local Civil Rule 1.5(c) limits possible relief to specific disciplinary measures or non-disciplinary suspensions.
- Court addresses whether a private citizen has standing to appeal a district grievance committee decision.
- Court ultimately rules that Appellant lacks standing and dismisses the proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal district decision | Appellant asserts standing as a public interest plaintiff. | Appellant lacks a cognizable interest and standing. | Appellant lacks standing; dismissal affirmed. |
| Redressability of district committee decision | Discipline of attorneys is a matter of public interest and misconduct by Attorneys 1/2. | Relief limited by Local Rule 1.5(c) and does not directly affect Appellant. | No direct effect; no standing to seek relief or mandamus. |
| Authority to investigate or discipline by the court | Court should investigate or discipline the attorneys. | Alleged misconduct relates to district proceedings; court should refrain. | Request to investigate/discipline denied; matter dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Phillips, 510 F.2d 126 (2d Cir. 1975) (private party has no standing to participate in disciplinary proceeding)
- Mattice v. Meyer, 353 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1965) (lacks standing to disbar or appeal disbarment action)
- Starr v. Mandanici, 152 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 1998) (no standing to appeal disciplinary decision)
- Ginsburg v. Stern, 125 F.Supp. 596 (W.D. Pa. 1954) (informant status; complainant has no recourse if court declines to proceed)
- In re Lynn, 505 F.3d 1323 (10th Cir. 2007) (private citizen lacks standing to initiate or maintain disciplinary proceedings)
- Ramos Colon v. United States Attorney, 576 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1978) (private party cannot challenge district court’s decision not to discipline)
- Teitelbaum, 253 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1958) (U.S. Attorney lacked standing to appeal disbarment denial)
- Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559 (10th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge bar’s failure to discipline)
- Aurelius Capital Partners, LP v. Republic of Argentina, 584 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2009) (nonparty may have standing if interests are affected by judgment)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete interest and injury; generalized grievance insufficient)