*1 BROOKS v. LAWS et al. Misc. No. 310. Appeals
United Court of District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov.
Decided June Rehearing Denied
Petition Dec. Brooks,
Mr.
petitioner, pro
Homer
se.
Atty.
Asst.
Baldridge pro
Gen. Holmes
vice, by special
hac
respondents.
leave of
Hickey,
Mr.
Atty., Dept.
Edward H.
Justice, Washington,
C.,D.
also entered
appearance
respondents.
STEPHENS,
Before
Judge,
Chief
PRETTYMAN,
EDGERTON and
Cir-
Judges.
cuit
Judge.
PRETTYMAN, Circuit
matter
us is
before
a motion filed
asking
Homer Brooks
our leave to file
complaint.
prof-
in this court a
In the
complaint
pray
fered
he would
for an
Judge
order
directed
the Chief
Judges
the Associate
the United
States District Court for the District of
sought
Columbia. The order thus
require
accept
the District Court to
file a notice of
sought
which Brooks
lodge
(actual-
from an “order”
ly
letter) alleged
in form a
to have been
*2
11,
11,
of the
one
October
Thereafter
on October
court
entered
that
copies
that notice
returned
carbon
of
us
before
1951. So the matter
following
to him
notation:
permission to
with the
request for our
effect a
bring an
for mandamus.1
action
being
opinion
»The Court
that
facts,
procedural and sub-
both
denying
application
its
action
presented
stantive,
they
are
0f Homer Brooks for admission to
papers
us,
and
volume
in such
before
pursuant
taken
bar was
its
complicated.
treat
We
detail as to be
powers
ap-
is not
administrative
and
separately.
of facts
two kinds
right
pealable,
to file
this notice
[Signed]
appeal
denied.
Bo-
March
or about
Procedural
On
facts.
Judge.”
Laws,
litha J.
Chief
4, 1948,
with the
Brooks filed
Secretary
for the attention
6, 1951,
Thereupon, on November
and
Committee on Admissions
groo]jS
jn
motion now
this court the
^
^
^
admission,
Grievances,
application naming
plaintiff
US;
himself as
bcfore
upon motion,
tnat court.
to tne bar of
y,e Qbjef judge
Judg-
and Associate
and
questionnaire
He
and filed
executed
defendants,
yle j)istrict
e3 0£
Court as
applicant,.
required of an
and affidavit
proffered
Attached to the motion
hearing
gave
Brooks
The Committee
judges
complaint.
defendant
filed a
appli-
1948,
April 23,
and denied
on
At-
dismiss Brooks’s motion.
motion to
5,
Thereafter, on November
cauon.
motion were
tached to their
a number of
Judge
1949,
Brooks wrote the Chief
Both
for oral
exhibits.
motions were set
asserting
letter,
his
Court a
heard,
argUment
were
and
bar, and on
admitted
question
Substantive
his
facts.
April 20, 1950, applied
the Commit-
na:'re
Brooks stated that he
an<^affidavit
applica-
his
tee for reconsideration
Alabama;
Evergreen,
was born
that
1950,
28,
April
Committee
tion. On
hi®
residences had been
Ever
data
and additional
reconsideration
Birmingham, Washington,
green,
D.
May
again rejected
application.
On
college;
O.;
he had not attended
Judge
24, 1950,
wrote Brooks
the Chief
degree from
had an LL.B.
La
judges
Court had
of the District
that the
having
Salle, Chicago,
special
taken
should be
the Committee
concluded that
Birmingham;
and that he
courses at
sustained.
_
,
private practice
.
actual
had had “No
,
,
,
,
„
August 30, 1951, year
three
.
.
...
On
’
T
In
,
,.
,
,
,,
,
later,
T,
Brooks filed
,
-p..
.
. .
alone—since admitted to bar.
re-
,
,
,.
,
m the District
.
.
months
’
„
,
,
,
sponse
instruction
.
. .
to an
to Make a
,
,
, ,
,.
,
„
„
sought (1) recon-
a motion which
your
„ ,
complete
practice
.
statement
,
,
,
,,
,
application
„
,
for admis-
.
his
sideration of
„
.,
j,
,
.
he had
Brooks wrote that
as-
f.
,
,
.
.
sion, (2)
new informa-
.
consideration
,
Black, Esquire,
. .
him
of Bir-
sisted William G.
,.
admitting
,.
tion,
(3)
.
.
.
.
an order
' „
,
spare
,,
,,, mmgham, m
m
.
he filed
research
time—
.
bar. On
,
he had been m
,
,
,
,
,
,.
1951,
„
,
,,
October
gratis
.,,
and that
n
o.
i- 4.-
,.
„
,
....
Court an
with the District
4.1114.0!
„
legal
j
practice
(cid:127)
on the
stair
.
(cid:127)
Government
i
his
n
„
granting
(that
,,
,
„
(cid:127)
motion
for an order
T
Inter-American
A
A
,
Office of
Affairs
...August
19ol).
Department
State, which
and the
Gov
_
Judge
11, 1951, the Chief
On October
April
dated as from
service he
ernment
Judges
Brooks that
wrote
1; 1945;
(23½
March
15>
application in
execu-
had considered
point
months).
ques
At another
on the
the action of the
and that
tive session
and in a letter which
tionnaire
panied,
accom
the Committee.
was to sustain
it,
preceded,
he made
reference
2, 1951,
Division
the Claims
Brooks
to work
handed
On November
Accounting
from
Office
October
Officeof
District Court General
Clerk’s
April
but it is not
from
the “order” of
a notice
strange
permitted
procedure,
seemingly
it is
Whatever
merit
demerit of this
jurisdiction.
in this
custom
private'
practice
seven
clear
he was
months-of
references
those
claiming
of the’ March
as the
October
work
legal
questionnaire he
that he also attached evidence as to- his
stated
law. On
*3
position
in
duties
his
as clerk
to October
from December
Judge
Municipal
Chief
of the
employed
Court
the Southeast-
he was
then,
successor,
the-
Express Company
District of Columbia. He also
and its
ern
Birming-
Agency,
Railway
was a
the bar
Express
stated that he
member of
the
ham,
Supreme
capad- of
United
Court of the
“in different
as a clerk and
States,
court,
United
ad-
of this
and of the
he had been
He
that
ties”.
stated
Emergency
Appeals.
Mississippi
At-
Bar March
Court of
mitted to the
motion
affidavit
Court
tached to that
of
was
to the United States
Mississippi Brooks, in which he
of
described
for the Southern
claimed
private
practice
Mississippi
Court
as follows:
State
and
March, 1945,
,,
the United States
in
and to
* * *
of
that
date
from the
Appeals
the Fifth Circuit
of
Court
admissmn, he
Court
was
said
entry
on either
in 1946. He made no
Court
Lauderdale
Circuit
questionnaire which
items
the two
J,theCounty’ Mississippi]
times
several
applica-
“every
for statements
called
although
and
he was
presented
per
ready,
taken
and examination
fion
month
to take
granted by
you
state
for a license
able
wdhnf
Cour1t
Criminal,
appointed cases Civil or
procurement
position,
or an official
otherwise,
did not
he
good
reqúired proof of
character”'
which
indigent
office,
tamtam a law
was before
but
“every application for
to
admission
holding
himself
by you EXCEPT
cov-
made
those
the bar
out
attorney
law,
practice
your
question
9”
to
answers
ered
attorneys m
the same as some
relating
(which
those
answers were
District of Columbia who are before
etc.).
Mississippi,
In an-
admission
daily
the Court
and handle cases
you
question “Have
ever
swer
s
Court,
appointed
but
any
party
had
claimed
in-
to or
or
proceeding?”,
been
wben,
office;
who do not maintain an
any
he
terest
civil
Judge
be dld inverse with the said
questionnaire he
“No.”
wrote
On
on some
did not ac
cases but
coming
Federal
with
“Due to
said:
Busby
any
tually handle
case * * *."
immediately after
in 1942
Government
position
passing
not
the bar. I was
motion’
Also attached
Brooks’s
was
begin practice,
not
If
I had
[sic]
to
accepted
but
by him, stating
an affidavit
that since
position here I would
4, 1948, he had been Court Clerk
October
practice.
actually
private
I deem
been in
Judge
Municipal
the .Chief
equivalent
practice
the Government
to.
such,
describing
his duties as
Mississippi.
practice in
such actual
in a
filed
same
statement
at the
time
grants
privilege
Mississippi
State
position
as “Clerk of
described
ques-
reciprocity.”
Attached
Judge,
the Court” for the Chief
Board
certificate
were a
tionnaire
papers
proceeding by
filed
this-
Mississippi dated
Bar Admissions
respondents it is shown that Brooks filed
stating
that Brooks was
March
applications
thirteen
for admission to the
things duly qualified”
practice
“in all
and took
Alabama bar
the examination
State;
certifi-
in all courts of
eight
it;
pass
did
times but
of the courts to which
of the clerks
cates
brought
1941 Brooks
a suit for declara
admitted;
copy
been
of his
had
he
tory judgment
in the Circuit Court degree
Extension
Univer-
LaSalle
County, Alabama, praying
Jefferson
Dean,
sity;
of its
and the certificate
comply
to whether
must
decision as
courses,
-in
Brooks’s
his law
marks
with
revised
with certain
rules as to admis
bar; “Motion for Reconsideration” sion
that the suit
In his
was
plea
judicata.
of res
claimed
for dismissed on
said that he
credit
Brooks
.
Gov-,
coming
failed,
Federal
with the
the “Due
that Brooks
It is obvious
”
* * *
here-
Court,
we have
ernment
papers
he filed with
questionnaire,
quoted from the
tofore
to admis
that he was entitled
to show
of that court
sion to the bar
he did as
claims that the work
Brooks
governing
of mem
rules
Municipal
_
or clerk
_
clerk to the
jurisdictions
bar of other
bers of the
Judge
court, was the
of that
the Chief
without examination.
motion
prac
was
of law. I£ that work
ap
requirement
rule
But
tice,
practice in that court.
practiced
five
plicant
law for
must
nor entitled
admitted
Brooks was neither
have^
years".2
said he
Brooks
assistance
*4
place
first
In the
to admission there.
Esquire,
gave
Black,
of Bir
G.
William
place Rule
Munici
of
Civil Rules
the
prac
mingham,
the
not
been
could
have
pal
provides
the
that “Neither
Court
law,
Brooks was never
tice
because
of
serving
assistants,
anyone
nor
clerk nor his
His claim
admitted
the Alabama Bar.
judge
secretary to a
s a law clerk or
a
practice in the Office
for Government
any
employed
court)
in
other
of this
and the State
of Inter-American Affairs
engage
court,
capacity
this
shall
Department
only
for
months.
was
23½
continuing
practice
in
of law while
in the
His work
a claims examiner
as
place
position.” In
second
in
the
such
Accounting
from Oc
Officewas
General
its
is that
of
court
Civil Rule 1945, thirty
April 1,
1, 1942, to
tober
persons
who
bar shall consist
in
total time
the Federal
months. The
United States
bar of the
members of the
re
than
Government is thus less
the
of Columbia
the District
District Court for
quired
years.
Moreover there
five
prescribed
a
nd
have taken
a
who
nothing
papers
the
to show that
signed
roll,
paid
oath,
a fee.
the
Accounting
work in
General
Office
the
of Brooks’s admission
denial
practice
law;
indeed Brooks
was the
subject of the
Court
the
District
bar
position there came from an ex
said his
controversy.
present;
not have
He could
,
Express
al
for an
Clerk
amination
though
Municipal
practicing in the
keen
accepted position
he
claims
sum,
pa
examiner.
upon
face of the
the
,
.,
,.
„
,.
pers,
..
claims which Br
none of the
c o
In his motion for reconsideration
o
k
s
exception
jxt.xi.
made,
possible
with the
i-.-
ti
Brooks claimed that
he
his
practiced
3
2
,
legal
the
on the
staff
months
xi. x 1. ½
that
Mississippi
m
S
t
a
Department,
practice
described the
Municipal
practices
clerk
law as a
te
not qualifiedunder the
Mississippi
he showed that
Court. As
He
of,law.upon
application,
rule
his
case,
office and never had a
he had no
Furthermore,
engagement
in
the facts
this
private
case
either
place
squarely
the
appointment,
matter
within the dis-
that he did
moreover
Mississippi
cretion
the District Court under the
in
in Alabama
not live
during
but
Clephane.3
period.
fact,
rule in Carver v.
Brooks’s
As a matter
experiences
original application
to show
failure
ing
his
ac-
seek-
the
Alabama,
letter,
companying
posi-
admission
Brooks took
bringing
acceptance
even to
extent of
tion that his
of federal em-
at least
entering private
respect
ployment prevented
two court actions there in
his
brings
admission,
specifically,
practice.
only
“I
not
He there said
case
immediately begin
within
rule laid down
did not
the Carver
law,”
up-
“I
case but within
factual
believe that due
these
situation
kept
points
private
Upon
me from
on which that decision rested.
two
respect
practice”.
pertinent papers
Also
uncontroverted facts shown in
beginning
long paragraph
with before the Committee and
is the
the District
U.S.App.D.C. 91,
2. Rules of
United
of the mission to a state and a . the bar of ordinary is “a minis- right controversy. case in an its bar denial of that is a performed virtue act which is terial the claim in a state When is made made judicial power”. right That was court and a denial of the opinion portions by judicial order, clear a case made it is already It described. Art which we which reviewed following again clearly appears III when icle of the Constitution passage: questions federal raised proper steps end, taken to Th " i to admims h court created us t s ."46 under Illinois as it the laws of ter "* * * Only w a decision charged parti them, h h stands i c right c violated a federal secured ular justice ly protection y with b the Fourteenth Amendment w i n through sup u Illinois courts of o l d47 authorize our intervention. v i er bar, admissions sion the dilemma itself faced with found expression “A claim of a The applicant .excluding whom right to admission to the bar” respon disqualified for the deemed s something ap means more than mere profession law or ibilities plication of court. There under the rules admitting the because right inherent law.48 deeply tradition rooted its of. qualification un arises after The responsibili belief. established, freedom of ty der the rules has been personnel of' to'the for choice as case, total Summers 4 4 Illinois.” with its bar rests gen it, affirmation of the we read is an “supervision” and expressions that admission to the bar of a eral rule personnel” performed by describe act is a ministerial “choice judicial power The Court function. that denial virtue of but administrative that the assertion view in asserted violation of a equally clear of admission made right, right, right, especially case in the Summers a constitutional point right, opportunity at is the for invocation of creates an judicial power; a constitutional controversy controversy may arises. the case opening in a form which clear then be cast becomes view made Stimson, 1950, Id., page 571, Psaty v. 47. at Fuhrman U.S. 65 S.Ct. at & 325 43. 985, 47, page U.S.App.D.C. F.2d 182 87 cited. there cases Keenan, 1943, 544, 314 Mass. 48. In re 50 Berkwitzk, 785; 570-571, In pages N.E.2d re 323 Supra, at 325 U.S. Ka„ 45; 80 N.E.2d Mass. Wright, 1863, Cohen v. page 1312. at S.Ct. 293, 319; ,r, „ c, Cal. In re . TT 566-567, pages Id., S.Ct. at U.S. Investigation Examination, Conduct page 1311. at Etc., 1934, 829; 1 Cal.2d 33 P.2d 568-569, Maddox, 1901, pages Id., 65 S.Ct. 93 Md. re 50 A. at U.S. Dysart, 298. See v. page 55 L.R.A. Yeiser 267 U.S. S.Ct. L. Ed.
29 ample, description literal and judicial proceeding in most station lawyers opinion function of in this court’s sense. Certainly, in B ooth v. Fletcher.5 Reverting portion of the Sum- 0 in so far as that characterization has opinion made mers which meaning, admission to not the bar is acceptance an.y Illinois view its clear decision officers The selection of Judicial bar, a claim absent admission its . judicial proceeding n ot a or right, we note of a federal violation rendering judicial judgment. of a It is again Columbia by the statutes we have not a described is not a admission an by Supreme pro cause. It “judg- rejection not a “cause” parte Bradley, in Ex su decision the Summers ment”. Under nouncement, pra, judgment. judicial not a is a would conclusive. view per act in the sense that it is an act to the bar admission judicial body Of course formed official its power. Courts capacity. is an exercise of They power. no other have no ministerial, complains give Brooks that he was not or administrative executive Court, hearing n a before the District power course of the as such. But in the cites Goldsmith v. U. S. Board of they perform judicial power exercise 51 Appeals support posi of this acts, many ministerial administrative Tax opinion tion trary we think that is con many not “decisions” acts which are respects. to his contentions in three appoint judgments. clerks and Courts the first place carefully the Court de pro bailiffs, supplies, write order In right hearing upon app fined the ato rules, Indeed, mulgate if and so on. these words: lication judi every performed virtue of act ' e “decision”, power wer deemed cial petitioner “We think that the hav- meaning to the re ing there application that, shown in the section intention being strictive a citizen of the United States dealing. The with we are which statute public and-a certified accountant un- e opinion in Ex in th State, der the laws of a he was Garland,49 parte it declared ad in which within the class those entitled to the exercise of to the bar to be mission judicial be admitted to under the explicitly pointed power, out rules, Board’s he should not have Secombe, supra, parte in Ex it had rejected upon charges been of his well it has been settled “observed by giving op- unfitness without him an practice of common rules and portünity by hearing notice for exclusively 52 courts, that with it rests answer.”’’ qualified who is the court determine showed, What Goldsmith and what the officers, attorney one become „ prerequisite described as the counselor, what and for cause Court.rlght bearing, Brooks did not already ought haveWe to be removed.” Brooks dld not show his aP" pointed of the Court out the statement skow\ plication that he within the class supra. Bradley, parte Ex or those entitled to be aamitted many place court’s rules. others have the the second This papers any request many we do by find members times that said respective Brooks Court that he courts officers place See, they be heard. In the third for ex Brooks are admitted. 1926, 117, 215, 51. 46 70 U.S. 270 U.S. S.Ct. 4 Wall. 49. L.Ed. L.Ed. page 123, 355-356, Id., App.D.C. 351, U.S. at S.Ct. at page 676, 680-681, certiorari denied F.2d 59 S.Ct. 307 U.S. L.Ed. *12 Committee; (of hearing appeal filed no from that “order” had a full before May 24, 1950) a his motion was no Com and filed ease there the Goldsmith year alleged hearing mittee, before and three its had to be months after so the right appeal is date. His claimed the Board. by stated him to from the denial ought point out the We think we itself was ta the motion.58 The motion they sweep if s contentions of Brooks rdy and, moreover, appeal from rejection of his were If the sustained. validity bring up denial would not judicial application was a decision original action, as Brooks seeks upon a record should been made have validity do, but would involve open presented But court. evidence of motion. f the denial o purport of admission the whole that, place since second Brooks’s claim is country, jurisdic bar in and in this motion, opposition no filed to his was court, tion, is that the and in our own judgment be should had default. inquire in can Committee and the court grant him this de It is the failure to applicant’s confiden character judgment to correct fault that he seeks professional inquiry tial qualifications his and into op appeal But no there was consid an examination ponent pend to contest his motion. We ered and marked in confidence.53 ing application, proceeding upon charge applicant a fee of ourselves wag opponent. no and there having specific purpose of for the $50.00 However we do not base our decision investigation made.54 confidential holding upon procedural defects. Our charges fee to be also District Court is, stated, ap that an as we have paid If consideration the examiners.55 plication for admission to the bar is case, or is a cause controversy, case, a rejection cause or meaning controversy within upon an evalua of an words, if on the the action of those application qualifications for admission tion of his judicial judgment or de is a judg rules is not a decision under the cision, escape an aban we see ment, action of Dis and that of the whole of donment failing app admit an trict Court long system, established and exist since pursuant to such an evaluation of licant ing. justification for can find no We appealable. qualifications is not step. such a foregoing Upon basis we ex further observation. We add one against permission ercise our discretion appeal Brooks’s claim of seeking complaint mandamus. file a place, procedurally In the first defective. point out that the At the same time we Judge of the if of the Chief the letter proper action in the instant case was 11, 1951, is a District Court on October Clerk of the Court or appeal lies, which an so decision from prof itself receive and file the the court May 24, 1950. If letter of was his then, upon appeal; fered notice a mo thir the rules allow was a decision letter in this court to dismiss the tion filed appeal, ty days notation of an therefrom for sponte, filing sua this court year and one jurisdic for itself the have determined relief from the decision motion newly question whether the “decision” tional evidence.57 Brooks discovered Requirements amendment October Bar Examinations Wash.L.Rep. 1069, 93(j).) Rule this was to the Bar 262-268 Admission 1952). (Shepard’s Citations 73(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. U.S.C.A. Appeals Id., 60(b). S. Court of Rules 54. General U. 7 (b). of Columbia Circuit for the This motion was entitled Motion for Application; for Con- Reconsideration Appli- of New Information of U. S. District Court sideration Rules 55. Local Civil cation, (Prior 93(b). and for Admission.” District of Columbia for the *13 But decision. lest it sought “final decis dictum rather than awas to be reviewed authority I think it to be followed in future cases Every court has ion”.59 unanswered, go instance, should not first for itself the determine jurisdiction a consider to whether it has proffered recently, Supreme has held Court proceeding.For expressly, qualification that and without Court the a "decision" r t to decidefor itself ha right present t of a “A claim sought by it, dered en to right of and a denial of that the bar a State appealable char not of reviewed was ." controversy is a In re Summers acter, forbid the that reason , 65 S.Ct. U.S. party filing a of a notice suggests L that there .Ed. 1785. one No reviewed, seeking to have the decision respect this a differenCein between deny access was for court bar of the District state and bar Appeals for determination Court of “holding says Yet this Court it is Court. jurisdictional * * * application question-except for admission that an through course, for a writ controversy, case, t o the bar is not a cause for the Dis mandamus The effect was rejection at th Ap deny to Court of trict Court to * * *." * is not a decision * peals opportunity to determine for itself reviewed, Supreme through ordinary procedure Court whether or controversy, the Illinois questioned Dis decision a not the decision appealable court’s to admit refusal Summers character. trict Court was Supreme i Illinois bar. The Court was n d motion for to file the com- e leave . . ed concerned with the circumstances 1ain 13 ^ the refusal" but for a reason nothing present with Denied. has to do case. a may a state
Whether final decision of court may , , not be in t reviewed e ». r-.- TJudge (concur- EDGERTON, Circuit . h ’ Supreme depends upon . circum rmg result). m the s Accordingly tances. the Court said: points determining near the end of purpose As the court out “For the wheth opinion, attempt to Supreme Brooks made no its appeal er the action of the Court of denying petition time Fed within the fixed Illinois Summers’ Rules of V/e should eral Civil Procedure. an order for admission to present deny judgment judicial pro motion. More therefore in Illinois is ceeding in a is, says, court “obvious that over it which involves a case or contro failed, papers versy he filed with Brooks this Art reviewable in III, show that he was 1 of icle Cl. the Constitution of § States, to admission to the bar of that entitled we the United appraise must ourselves ** He court *.” showed was the circumstances re appeal, page 566, if Therefore even entitled. 325 U.S. at S.Ct. fusal.” page filed, promptly (Emphasis supplied.) have been dismissed To why immediately effect, on motion. This is second reason like after the Court’s motion, deny present unqualified Brooks’s “A we should Accordingly statement that claim of a right have no occasion we to con to admission to the bar of question right the court discusses and denial of that sider state is a negative, rejec controversy” “whether answers the Court said: “When applica of an in a the District Court claim is made state and a tion by judicial to its is a decision denial of the is made for admission tion meaning order, is a of Section 1291 of case reviewed within III of the of the United States Code” and under Article Constitution Title questions appealable. What the court when raised and is therefore federal steps subject appears proper end, says taken me to be this on Mattingly, App.D.C.188, UnitedStates v. 285F. 922. 568-569, pages 65 all decisions of this court 325 U.S. at are reviewable Court.” supp (Emphasis page Court.1 S.Ct. at lied.) The Summers is not new. As doctrine *14 long ago said, Supreme as 1866 the Court (1) proposition court treats the This discussing attorneys, the admission of determine whether that circumstances “Their admission is or their exclusion present controversy over a claimed a right not the exercise of power. ministerial a mere is re- state bar to a to admission judicial pow It is the exercise Court, if it by Supreme as the viewable er, and has been so held in numerous (2) determine that circumstances meant parte Garland, cases.” Ex 4 Wall. right ad- claimed whether denial of a 71 U.S. L.Ed. 366. The controversy. 378 — creates mission to a bar approval Court cited with Matter of distinct, propositions are these two But Cooper, 1860, in which N.Y. from does not follow and the second Appeals held York New Court of technical, suggests court first. This denying ap that a trial an court’s order second practical, for the or other reason plication for bar was admission to the Supreme proposition. Moreover error, appealable, found and reversed. sug- announcing Court, or far from so gesting proposition, U.S, contra- stating Clephane, the second In Carver v. by case App.D.C. 91, in the Summers dieted it 137 F.2d categorically of a claimed a denial hearing, that after a had dismissed sought “is a contro- complaint to admission require its Com that versy”. mittee on Admissions and Grievances certify Carver for admission to the Dis emphasizes that the the fact This court appealed-to trict Courts bar. Carver Brooks admit refusal to District Court’s this court. We considered and affirmed by by but letter. formal order was not validity of the District Court’s order court’s Illinois the fact that the overlooks denying right to admis Carver’s claimed by notWas refusal to admit Summers gave thereby sion to the bar. We by 325 U.S. but letter. formal order page 564, question affirmative answer to the wheth takes 1309. This court 65 S.Ct. appealable. er such an order is precisely Illinois court took the view say purport of courts question “the such a refusal whole whether country, in-this or a admission to the bar matter an administrative court, Supreme jurisdiction, controversy. this our' own decision of a opposite is that and the court can of that the Committee view Court took by inquire applicant’s quotes if were into the character question. This court * *." inquiry * Supreme confidential This own Court’s a statement may merely imply applicants the seems to be I to be what understand view finally rejected on Supreme Illinois the basis secret statement of the Court's by view, attacks on their character secret in matter is administra i. e. that the is-otherwise, recognized I think Supreme formants. tive. The report Attorneys A on Admission of would have ended the Illinois decision controversy Jurisdictions, prepared by from Other but for the fact Secretary Farley, O. of the Comm particular refusal” Goscoe “circumstances of Bar California, ittee Examiners of the State made the decision re to admit Summers Survey Supreme Bar of Legal for the But that Court. viewable published here, Profession in Bar all final deci since is irrelevant Requirements Examinations are reviewable of the District Court sions (1952), Supreme to the Bar seems to and Admission or the in this court juris U.S.C.(Supp. appeals 62 Stat. shall Court.” courts of 1. “The V) ap appeals 1291. “Cases in the courts § all final decisions diction ’ may peals Supreme be reviewed courts United district * * * (Supp. V) except § Court”. U.S.C. where a direct had review admission, for its practice in recommend his this cline to prevailing show supposes, if to take action is not final he chooses country what ap- 161-162): a court his to court. But for says (p. “the report reject finally because of convicted plicant never been who has charges by grievance secret informants secret disciplined or a crime committee, shocking law- as to disbar a known to nevertheless but crime, yer, a man of on such fellow convict practitioner his an unethical be lawyers, charges. By get applica- incom- innocent mistake or often is able board, examining petence eon- carelessness or malice a accepted tion may make false In fidcntial informant this. reasons are several There *15 charges. Elementary fairness and there- obtained place, information first the by finally process of forbid re- Ex- fore due of Bar Conference National grounds character, jecting, so, an (it on needs to be confidential aminers is applicant qualified al- without otherwise many of information sources else occasionally lowing public opportunity con- him a it) and hence closed derogatory refute their accusers and examining front his have will board an hearing public charges. applicant, to a and not about information safeguard against insufficiency necessary re- can is also This to use it. be able charges jection are true inter- because skillful overcome sometimes applicant get irrelevant, e.g. has that an as to but rogation so social, political, by prov- wrongdoing, eco- unconventional admit the him to views, confidential) through (not ing nomic another said source.” The * * * “Attorneys are officers 1866: court, its or- admitted as such of the der, upon possessing their evidence learning private legal fair sufficient general prac- has been character. country this evi- parties.” obtain in this tice an examination dence al. v. SICILIANO. Garland, et 71 U.S. parte Wall. Ex HERNANDEZ No. 333, 378, L.Ed. 366. Appeals Court of United States agree if, I court that I with this District of Columbia Circuit. rejection think, the District Court’s petitioner’s was a 9, 1953. Submitted Oct. it should been made decision 29, 1953. Decided Oct. open presented in of evidence record disagree s
court. But I with the court rejection appeal- if the statement that court must assume the burden
able this evaluating qualifications for admission the District Court. This
to the bar of as it would he
seems to me as erroneous say if District Court s denial appeal- in contract or tort is of a claim burden court must assume the
able this evaluating in such cases. the evidence retry cases but to function is not to Our opinion in our
determine whether law.
trial court followed the made secret informants have When charges against applicant pos-
secret sibly de- a Committee on Admissions