Rel: December 8, 2023
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
_________________________
SC-2023-0507 _________________________
Gatewood A. Walden
v.
The Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-23-70)
SELLERS, Justice.
Gatewood A. Walden, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment
of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing his action against the SC-2023-0507
Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar ("the Disciplinary Board").
We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Walden was admitted to the Alabama State Bar in 1966. In June
2012, the Disciplinary Board found Walden guilty of charges brought
against him and issued an order disbarring him from the practice of law
in this State. This Court affirmed the order entered by the Disciplinary
Board, without an opinion. See Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n, (No.
1111313, Dec. 14, 2012) 156 So. 3d 999 (Ala. 2012) (table). This Court
subsequently overruled Walden's application for a rehearing, and the
certificate of judgment issued on February 22, 2013. See Walden v.
Alabama State Bar Ass'n, (No. 1111313, Feb. 22, 2013) 162 So. 3d 948
(Ala. 2013) (table). After his disbarment, Walden initiated proceedings
in both state and federal courts challenging the Disciplinary Board's
findings related to his disbarment. 1 Most recently, Walden commenced
1 See, e.g.: this Court's order of dismissal in Ex parte Walden (No. 1120906, June 5, 2013) (dismissing petition to "withdraw the decision affirming the order of disbarment of Gatewood A. Walden"); this Court's order of dismissal in Ex parte Walden (No. 1130394, May 29, 2014) (dismissing both petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Alabama State Bar Association and petition for reinstatement); the Montgomery Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n 2 SC-2023-0507
an action in the Montgomery Circuit Court requesting that the circuit
court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Disciplinary Board to
vacate its disbarment order on the basis that the order was void. Walden
also claimed that, because the disbarment order was void, this Court's
decision affirming that order was also void. The Disciplinary Board filed
a motion to dismiss Walden's action, arguing, in relevant part, that the
circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter. The
circuit court entered a judgment, dismissing the action. Walden filed a
et al. (No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX, Sept. 17, 2018) (dismissing an action against the Alabama State Bar Association and certain Bar officials for lack of jurisdiction), aff'd, Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n, 320 So. 3d 545 (Ala. 2020); the Montgomery Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n et al. (No. CV-21-900727, Aug. 4, 2021) (dismissing action against the Alabama State Bar Association and other defendant for lack of jurisdiction and further ordering that Walden was "barred from filing any future pleading, petition or complaint premised on his disbarment"); the Lowndes Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Disciplinary Bd. of Alabama State Bar (No. CV-22-000007, Sept. 7, 2022) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus directed to the Disciplinary Board); and the Montgomery Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Disciplinary Bd. of Alabama State Bar (No. CV- 23-000070, May 8, 2023) (dismissing action against the Disciplinary Board). Walden also filed a "Petition for Reinstatement" in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. That proceeding culminated in Walden's disbarment from the practice of law in that court. See In re Walden, 709 F. App'x 644 (11th Cir. 2017).
3 SC-2023-0507
motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which was denied. This
appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
This Court reviews de novo the issue whether the circuit court
lacked jurisdiction in this case. State Dep't of Revenue v. Arnold, 909 So.
2d 192 (Ala. 2005).
III. Discussion
A. Merits
Walden argues, without citation to any legal authority, that the
circuit court erred in dismissing his action against the Disciplinary Board
because, he says, "[u]nder Alabama law, the Montgomery Circuit Court
has supervisory jurisdiction over the Disciplinary Board of the State
Bar." Walden's brief at 10 (emphasis in original). However, Walden
entirely ignores this Court's holding in Walden v. Alabama State Bar
Ass'n, 320 So. 3d 545 (Ala. 2020). In that case, Walden challenged a
judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing his action against,
among others, the Disciplinary Board. In his complaint, Walden had
requested, in relevant part, that the circuit court enter a judgment (1)
declaring that the revocation of his law license was void and (2) directing
4 SC-2023-0507
the Alabama State Bar reinstate him as a member of the Bar in good
standing. The circuit court entered a judgment dismissing the action,
explaining that the court did not " 'have the jurisdiction to review nor the
ability to grant the relief [Walden] is requesting.' " 320 So. 3d at 548. In
affirming that judgment, this Court made it abundantly clear that the
circuit courts of this State have no jurisdiction over orders entered in Bar
disciplinary proceedings:
"The trial court correctly concluded that it did not have the power to grant Walden the relief he seeks. As detailed above, while Walden's disciplinary proceeding was pending in 2011, he initiated an action in the Montgomery Circuit Court asking the court to insert itself into the disciplinary proceeding and to dissolve his interim suspension. The trial court declined to do so and dismissed his action, explaining to Walden in a reasoned order that matters involving the discipline of members of the State Bar were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Bar 'with review by the Supreme Court of Alabama.' Rule 1(a)(1), Ala. R. Disc. P. This governing principle has not changed since then; to the contrary, it has only been reinforced. See, e.g., Nichols v. Alabama State Bar, 815 F.3d 726, 732 (11th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that 'Alabama law delegates to the State Bar, with supervision by the Supreme Court of Alabama, the power to investigate and discipline attorney misconduct').
"Simply put, circuit courts in this State have no authority to reverse a judgment made by the State Bar in a disciplinary proceeding, to admit an attorney to the State Bar, or to direct the State Bar to reinstate an attorney who has previously been disbarred. A party like Walden who is aggrieved by an adverse decision of the State Bar has the 5 SC-2023-0507
right under Rule 12(f), Ala. R. Disc. P., to seek appellate review of that decision -- from this Court -- not from a circuit court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rel: December 8, 2023
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
_________________________
SC-2023-0507 _________________________
Gatewood A. Walden
v.
The Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-23-70)
SELLERS, Justice.
Gatewood A. Walden, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment
of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing his action against the SC-2023-0507
Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar ("the Disciplinary Board").
We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Walden was admitted to the Alabama State Bar in 1966. In June
2012, the Disciplinary Board found Walden guilty of charges brought
against him and issued an order disbarring him from the practice of law
in this State. This Court affirmed the order entered by the Disciplinary
Board, without an opinion. See Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n, (No.
1111313, Dec. 14, 2012) 156 So. 3d 999 (Ala. 2012) (table). This Court
subsequently overruled Walden's application for a rehearing, and the
certificate of judgment issued on February 22, 2013. See Walden v.
Alabama State Bar Ass'n, (No. 1111313, Feb. 22, 2013) 162 So. 3d 948
(Ala. 2013) (table). After his disbarment, Walden initiated proceedings
in both state and federal courts challenging the Disciplinary Board's
findings related to his disbarment. 1 Most recently, Walden commenced
1 See, e.g.: this Court's order of dismissal in Ex parte Walden (No. 1120906, June 5, 2013) (dismissing petition to "withdraw the decision affirming the order of disbarment of Gatewood A. Walden"); this Court's order of dismissal in Ex parte Walden (No. 1130394, May 29, 2014) (dismissing both petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Alabama State Bar Association and petition for reinstatement); the Montgomery Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n 2 SC-2023-0507
an action in the Montgomery Circuit Court requesting that the circuit
court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Disciplinary Board to
vacate its disbarment order on the basis that the order was void. Walden
also claimed that, because the disbarment order was void, this Court's
decision affirming that order was also void. The Disciplinary Board filed
a motion to dismiss Walden's action, arguing, in relevant part, that the
circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter. The
circuit court entered a judgment, dismissing the action. Walden filed a
et al. (No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX, Sept. 17, 2018) (dismissing an action against the Alabama State Bar Association and certain Bar officials for lack of jurisdiction), aff'd, Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n, 320 So. 3d 545 (Ala. 2020); the Montgomery Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n et al. (No. CV-21-900727, Aug. 4, 2021) (dismissing action against the Alabama State Bar Association and other defendant for lack of jurisdiction and further ordering that Walden was "barred from filing any future pleading, petition or complaint premised on his disbarment"); the Lowndes Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Disciplinary Bd. of Alabama State Bar (No. CV-22-000007, Sept. 7, 2022) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus directed to the Disciplinary Board); and the Montgomery Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Disciplinary Bd. of Alabama State Bar (No. CV- 23-000070, May 8, 2023) (dismissing action against the Disciplinary Board). Walden also filed a "Petition for Reinstatement" in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. That proceeding culminated in Walden's disbarment from the practice of law in that court. See In re Walden, 709 F. App'x 644 (11th Cir. 2017).
3 SC-2023-0507
motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which was denied. This
appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
This Court reviews de novo the issue whether the circuit court
lacked jurisdiction in this case. State Dep't of Revenue v. Arnold, 909 So.
2d 192 (Ala. 2005).
III. Discussion
A. Merits
Walden argues, without citation to any legal authority, that the
circuit court erred in dismissing his action against the Disciplinary Board
because, he says, "[u]nder Alabama law, the Montgomery Circuit Court
has supervisory jurisdiction over the Disciplinary Board of the State
Bar." Walden's brief at 10 (emphasis in original). However, Walden
entirely ignores this Court's holding in Walden v. Alabama State Bar
Ass'n, 320 So. 3d 545 (Ala. 2020). In that case, Walden challenged a
judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing his action against,
among others, the Disciplinary Board. In his complaint, Walden had
requested, in relevant part, that the circuit court enter a judgment (1)
declaring that the revocation of his law license was void and (2) directing
4 SC-2023-0507
the Alabama State Bar reinstate him as a member of the Bar in good
standing. The circuit court entered a judgment dismissing the action,
explaining that the court did not " 'have the jurisdiction to review nor the
ability to grant the relief [Walden] is requesting.' " 320 So. 3d at 548. In
affirming that judgment, this Court made it abundantly clear that the
circuit courts of this State have no jurisdiction over orders entered in Bar
disciplinary proceedings:
"The trial court correctly concluded that it did not have the power to grant Walden the relief he seeks. As detailed above, while Walden's disciplinary proceeding was pending in 2011, he initiated an action in the Montgomery Circuit Court asking the court to insert itself into the disciplinary proceeding and to dissolve his interim suspension. The trial court declined to do so and dismissed his action, explaining to Walden in a reasoned order that matters involving the discipline of members of the State Bar were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Bar 'with review by the Supreme Court of Alabama.' Rule 1(a)(1), Ala. R. Disc. P. This governing principle has not changed since then; to the contrary, it has only been reinforced. See, e.g., Nichols v. Alabama State Bar, 815 F.3d 726, 732 (11th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that 'Alabama law delegates to the State Bar, with supervision by the Supreme Court of Alabama, the power to investigate and discipline attorney misconduct').
"Simply put, circuit courts in this State have no authority to reverse a judgment made by the State Bar in a disciplinary proceeding, to admit an attorney to the State Bar, or to direct the State Bar to reinstate an attorney who has previously been disbarred. A party like Walden who is aggrieved by an adverse decision of the State Bar has the 5 SC-2023-0507
right under Rule 12(f), Ala. R. Disc. P., to seek appellate review of that decision -- from this Court -- not from a circuit court. Walden, in fact, availed himself of Rule 12(f) when he appealed his order of disbarment to this Court, which affirmed the State Bar's decision. The trial court has no jurisdiction to review that order of disbarment again, and it therefore properly dismissed Walden's complaint to the extent that complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the status of his membership in the State Bar."
Id. at 548. (some emphasis added).
Our holding in Walden, 320 So. 3d 545, was, and is, distinct, precise,
and unambiguous, providing no possibility that a circuit court could ever
have jurisdiction to entertain an action seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the Disciplinary Board to vacate an order disbarring an
attorney from the practice of law. Accordingly, the circuit court in this
case did not err in dismissing Walden's action. " 'Lacking subject-matter
jurisdiction [a court] may take no action other than to exercise its power
to dismiss the action. ... Any other action ... is null and void.' " State v.
Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1029 (Ala. 1999)
(quoting Beach v. Director of Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Mo. Ct. App.
1996)).
B. Sanctions
6 SC-2023-0507
Despite the finality of the order disbarring Walden from the
practice of law, this Court's holding in Walden, 320 So. 3d 545, and the
holding of this opinion, this Court has little doubt that Walden will
continue to file unwarranted challenges to his disbarment, thus abusing
this Court's limited resources. 2 We therefore conclude that a sanction is
merited. This Court has the inherent power to protect against repetitious
and frivolous filings that result in an abuse of the judicial process. As
the United States Supreme Court has noted, "[e]very paper filed with the
Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some
portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's
responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that
promotes the interests of justice." In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184
(1989). See also Peterson v. State, 817 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 2002) ("This
Court has a responsibility to ensure every citizen's right of access to the
courts. … A limitation on [the petitioner's] ability to file would further
the constitutional right to access for other litigants because it would
permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of
2At this juncture, Walden's sole recourse is to seek reinstatement
pursuant to Rule 28 of the Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. 7 SC-2023-0507
legitimate claims filed by others."). In order to promote the interests of
justice, Walden is precluded from proceeding pro se in this Court in any
matters relating to his disbarment; any future filings in this Court
challenging Walden's disbarment must be signed by a member in good
standing of the Alabama State Bar. Under the sanction imposed, Walden
is not being completely denied access to this Court. Rather, he may have
access to the Court through the assistance of counsel, if such counsel
determines that a proceeding relating to Walden's disbarment may have
merit and can be pursued in good faith.
IV. Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Walden's
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of this Court is
hereby instructed to reject future filings that in any way relate to
Walden's disbarment, unless signed by a member in good standing of the
Alabama State Bar.
AFFIRMED.
Parker, C.J., and Wise, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.