In Re John W. Collis

Sixth Circuit

In Re John W. Collis

556 F.2d 804, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13143

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1977

Docket77-1014

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 556 F.2d 804 (In Re John W. Collis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re John W. Collis, 556 F.2d 804, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13143 (6th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This appeal, perfected from an order of the district court striking the name of John W. Collis from the rolls of attorneys admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, has been submitted for consideration pursuant to Rule 3(e), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Respondent was disbarred by the Kentucky Court of Appeals (now the Supreme Court of Kentucky), Kentucky Bar Association v. Collis, 535 S.W.2d 95 (Ky.Ct.App. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S.Ct. 775, 46 L.Ed.2d 637 (1976), and a collateral attack on said state disbarment proceeding was denied in Collis v. Reed et al., 413 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Ky.1976), affirmed, Getty v. Reed et al., 547 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1977).

On January 20, 1976, the district court issued an order requiring respondent to *805 show cause why he should not be removed from the bar of that court, and after intervening proceedings and a full evidentiary hearing the disbarment order from which this appeal was perfected was entered, and this appeal followed. It is clear from the record that the respondent was afforded a full measure of due process in a scrupulously fair proceeding, and that the findings of the district court were based on uncontroverted facts. It was the district court’s conclusion that respondent had “engaged in unethical and unprofessional conduct of the degree and with the frequency that [justified] the striking of his name from the rolls of attorneys admitted to the practice in [the] District in lieu of any lesser sanction,” and since no abuse of discretion is apparent from the record, the district court’s determination is not open to review. Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This appeal, perfected from an order of the district court striking the name of John W. Collis from the rolls of attorneys admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, has been submitted for consideration pursuant to Rule 3(e), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Respondent was disbarred by the Kentucky Court of Appeals (now the Supreme Court of Kentucky), Kentucky Bar Association v. Collis, 535 S.W.2d 95 (Ky.Ct.App. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S.Ct. 775, 46 L.Ed.2d 637 (1976), and a collateral attack on said state disbarment proceeding was denied in Collis v. Reed et al., 413 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Ky.1976), affirmed, Getty v. Reed et al., 547 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1977).

On January 20, 1976, the district court issued an order requiring respondent to *805 show cause why he should not be removed from the bar of that court, and after intervening proceedings and a full evidentiary hearing the disbarment order from which this appeal was perfected was entered, and this appeal followed. It is clear from the record that the respondent was afforded a full measure of due process in a scrupulously fair proceeding, and that the findings of the district court were based on uncontroverted facts. It was the district court’s conclusion that respondent had “engaged in unethical and unprofessional conduct of the degree and with the frequency that [justified] the striking of his name from the rolls of attorneys admitted to the practice in [the] District in lieu of any lesser sanction,” and since no abuse of discretion is apparent from the record, the district court’s determination is not open to review. Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 F.2d 804, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-john-w-collis-ca6-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack