Wilfred Aka v. United States Tax Court
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6405
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Wilfred I. Aka, an attorney admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court, was the subject of repeated disciplinary proceedings for failing to appear at conferences and trials, not producing documents to opposing counsel, and ignoring court orders in multiple Tax Court cases.
- The Tax Court first disciplined Aka (reprimand, not disbarment) after finding violations of ABA Model Rules (competence, diligence, communication, fairness) and Tax Court Rule 202(a)(4).
- After further similar misconduct across seven additional matters, the Tax Court held a disciplinary hearing, found the failures were chronic and willful, and disbarred Aka; it denied his motion to vacate or modify.
- Aka appealed to the D.C. Circuit, arguing (1) the court lacks jurisdiction to review Tax Court disbarment orders, (2) the Tax Court violated procedural due process by not prescribing reinstatement steps, and (3) the disbarment violated substantive due process.
- The D.C. Circuit considered (a) whether Tax Court disbarment orders are "decisions of the Tax Court" within 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1) and thus appealable, (b) the proper standard of appellate review for attorney-discipline decisions, and (c) the merits of Aka’s due-process claims and request that the Tax Court specify reinstatement steps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review Tax Court disbarment orders | Aka implicitly argued the Court should not review because disbarment is an internal, non-appealable exercise of court’s inherent power | Tax Court (and gov’t) argued disbarment is a final Tax Court decision reviewable under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1) | D.C. Cir. has jurisdiction: disbarment orders are final "decisions of the Tax Court" and appealable under § 7482(a)(1) (court follows InverWorld) |
| Standard of appellate review for Tax Court attorney-discipline | Aka sought reversal (implicitly arguing either de novo review or that discipline was excessive) | Tax Court asserted deference; appellate court should review facts for clear error and constitutional claims de novo; some judges favor an abuse-of-discretion review that still assesses appropriateness of sanction | Majority: factual findings reviewed for clear error; constitutional due-process claims reviewed de novo. Concurring opinions explain appellate practice favors an abuse-of-discretion framework that permits ultimate assessment of sanction’s appropriateness |
| Procedural due process (failure to prescribe reinstatement steps) | Aka: Tax Court violated due process by not laying out how he could obtain reinstatement | Tax Court: due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard (which it provided); courts need not prescribe reinstatement steps; Tax Court rules already state reinstatement standard | Held: No procedural due-process violation; Tax Court provided required notice and hearing; it need not list reinstatement steps and already has published reinstatement standard (Tax Ct. R. 202(f)(2)(B)) |
| Substantive due process (disbarment too harsh; absence of criminality) | Aka: disbarment is arbitrary and deprived him of fundamental liberty; harsh because he committed no crime | Tax Court: disbarment protects courts/public and is justified by chronic, willful professional misconduct regardless of criminality | Held: Substantive due-process claim fails (no fundamental right implicated). The disbarment stands; the claim was "devoid of merit" and did not warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Echeles, 430 F.2d 347 (7th Cir. 1970) (courts’ inherent power to police their bars)
- In re Fletcher, 107 F.2d 666 (D.C. Cir. 1939) (disbarment orders are final and reviewable)
- InverWorld, Ltd. v. Comm’r, 979 F.2d 868 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (§ 7482(a)(1) controls appellate jurisdiction; finality is the criterion)
- Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 529 (U.S. 1824) (discipline of attorneys is a discretionary exercise of court power; review limited)
- In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1968) (procedural due process requirements for attorney discipline)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdictional limits and merits consideration)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (standard for recognizing fundamental rights under substantive due process)
- Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1925) (parental rights as fundamental liberty example)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1965) (right to privacy/contraceptive use)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (abortion and substantive-due-process analysis)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (sexual liberty under substantive due process)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2015) (same-sex marriage as a fundamental right)