In Re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141

Corrinet, a California attorney, moved to Oregon and sought to sit for the Oregon bar exam but was initially barred from sitting.
In 2002 Corrinet was admitted to practice before the District of Oregon despite a local rule requiring active Oregon Bar membership.
A district judge later allowed Corrinet to continue in a case while he sought Oregon State Bar admission, but never admitted him to the state bar.
After Corrinet failed to obtain Oregon State Bar membership, the district court revoked Corrinet's federal bar membership under Local Rule 83-2.
Corrinet timely appealed, challenging the district court’s revocation as a final disciplinary decision and arguing due process and rule-violation defects.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the revocation resembled a disbarment and requiring due process and adherence to local rules; the dissent argued there was no disbarment and that jurisdiction did not lie.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review revocation versus admission denial	Corrinet argues the order is a disbarment reviewable on appeal.	Oregon's order was an admission-denial matter not ordinarily appealable.	The revocation is appealable as a disbarment-like final decision.
Due process in the revocation proceeding	Corrinet contends notice and a fair hearing were deficient under due process standards.	District court followed procedures and local rules in disciplinary matters.	District court failed to provide proper notice, ignored local rules, and deprived Corrinet of a fair opportunity to respond.
Compliance with District of Oregon local rules	Corrinet was not given a proper order to show cause and lacked adequate time to respond.	Local rules were intended to regulate, not deny rights unjustly.	Cursory adherence to rules did not cure procedural flaws; revocation violated local rules.
Characterization of the district court action	The action was a disbarment-type sanction, not an ordinary admission-denial ruling.	The action was an eligibility determination under local rules.	Action resembled disbarment and thus is subject to appellate review.
Remand remedy	Corrinet should be reinstated or allowed to pursue Oregon admission with proper process.	Remand would allow re-evaluation under proper procedures.	Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with due process and local rules.

In re Wasserman, 240 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1956) (routine admission-denial orders not final; no appeal)
Gallo v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Ariz., 349 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2003) (denial of waiver from local rules not a final appealable order)
In re North, 383 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2004) (review of suspension/disbarment; jurisdiction for final order)
In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985) (disbarment requires due process and notice)
Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1999) (due process and adherence to court rules in disciplinary actions)