IN RE: v. Cordova Gonzalez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: August 3, 1993
• Docket: 92-1756
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

July 30, 1993     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________

No.  92-1756

IN RE: ANTONIO L. CORDOVA-GONZALEZ,
                                      Appellant.
                                 _________________

          No.  92-8038
                                          IN RE:

                                ANTONIO L. CORDOVA-GONZALEZ,
                                        Petitioner.

                                 ____________________

ERRATA SHEET

The  opinion of  this  court issued  on  June 30,  1993,  is
          amended as follows:

               On page 7, line 10:  delete the word "his".

July 1, 1993      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________

No. 92-1756

IN RE: ANTONIO L. CORDOVA-GONZALEZ,
                                      Appellant.
                                 ____________________

          No. 92-8038

                                       IN RE: 

                             ANTONIO L. CORDOVA-GONZALEZ
                                     Petitioner.

                                _____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

The  opinion of  this  Court issued  on  June 30,  1993,  is
          amended as follows:

               On  cover  sheet caption  for  No. 92-1756  change  the name
          "Antenio" to "Antonio".

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 92-1756

IN RE: ANTONIO L. CORDOVA-GONZALEZ,

                                      Appellant.

                                  __________________

          No. 92-8038

                                        IN RE:

                             ANTONIO L. CORDOVA-GONZALEZ,
                                     Petitioner.

                                ______________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ___________________

Antonio Cordova-Gonzalez on brief pro se.
               ________________________

                                  __________________
                                    June 30, 1993
                                  __________________

Per Curiam.   Antonio Cordova Gonzalez  was disbarred by
                 __________

            the United States  District Court for the District  of Puerto

            Rico.  Cordova appealed  that decision.   This  court ordered

            Cordova to  show cause why we should  not disbar him as well.

            The matters  were consolidated.   We now affirm  the district

            court's order,  and disbar Cordova from  practice before this

            court.

                                          I
                                          _

                 Cordova does not seriously dispute the facts as found by

            Magistrate  Arenas, the  committee  of lawyers  appointed  by

            Judge  Laffitte, and the district  court.  We  agree with the

            committee that,  with respect to the  first charge, involving

            the provision of bail on behalf of Cordova's client Irma Cruz

            Vazquez, Cordova  may not "technically" have  violated D.P.R.

            Local Rule  401.1(C)(3).  The  rule prohibits  a lawyer  from

            standing bail for  his client,  but in this  case it  appears

            that Cordova's  wife  actually posted  the bond,  and it  was

            never conclusively  determined that  Cordova owned or  had an

            interest in the property that his wife put up to secure Cruz'

            release.    This  technicality,  however,  does  not  absolve

            Cordova of all culpability in the matter: the committee found

            that Cordova's wife posted bail "under his auspices and  with

            his  express concurrence,"  and did  so by  pledging property

            that was  subject to the  jurisdiction of  the United  States

            Bankruptcy Court in bankruptcy proceedings that involved both

-2-

Mr.  and  Mrs. Cordova.    Cordova therefore  connived  at an

            effort  to deceive  the  district court  by obtaining  Cruz's

            release  through the  pledge  of property  that  was not  the

            pledgor's to give, and thus violated ABA Model Rule 8.4(d) by

            engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration

            of justice.1

                 With respect  to the  second charge,  we agree with  the

            district court  that Cordova  violated ABA Model  Rule 1.8(a)

            when he borrowed $100,000  from his client Jose Lopez-Nieves.

            Rule 1.8(a) prohibits a lawyer from  entering into a business

            transaction  with a  client unless,  among other  things, the

            terms of  the transaction  are fair  and reasonable  and "are

            fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a

            manner  which can  be reasonably  understood by  the client."

            Cordova borrowed  money from Lopez-Nieves  without disclosing

            to his client (a) that he did not own the property pledged as

            collateral, (b) that his wife -- who did own the collateral -

            -  and he  were involved  in bankruptcy proceedings,  and (c)

            that the collateral  was subject to  the jurisdiction of  the

            bankruptcy court, which had not approved the pledge.

                 As  to the  third charge,  that Cordova  filed pleadings

            containing vitriolic  slurs on  judges and lawyers  that were

____________________

            1.   The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional
            Conduct govern the conduct of lawyers who practice before the
            United  States District  Court in  Puerto  Rico.   Local Rule
            211.4(B).

                                         -3-

"degrading to  the law, the  bar and the Court,"  we will not

            repeat Cordova's  invective  here.   We  do find  the  record

            adequate legally  to support the  district court's conclusion

            that the  pleadings  Cordova  submitted  "show  an  incessant

            incorporation  of abusive and  disrespectful language against

            judges  and  opposing  counsel, replete  with  offensive  and

            vituperative statements in contravention  of Rules 3.5(c) and

            8.4(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct."

                                          II
                                          __

                 We  review  the  district  court's  decision  to  disbar

            Cordova  only  for  abuse  of  discretion,  In  re  Grievance
                                                        _________________

            Committee of  United States District  Court, 847 F.2d  57, 61
            ___________________________________________

            (2d Cir.  1988); In  re Evans,  801 F.2d 703,  706 (4th  Cir.
                             ____________

            1986);  In re  Olkon, 795  F.2d 1379,  1381 (8th  Cir. 1986);
                    ____________

            Standing Committee on Discipline v. Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1172
            ________________________________    ____

            (9th Cir. 1984), and we find none here.  Cordova  is a lawyer

            of  some   thirty  years  experience,  and   no  stranger  to

            disciplinary proceedings.   See  In re Cordova  Gonzalez, 726
                                        ___  _______________________

            F.2d 16 (1st Cir.  1984); In re Antonio Cordova  Gonzalez, 90
                                      _______________________________

            J.T.S. 28 (P.R. 1990).   His dealings  with his client Lopez-

            Nieves show a  lack of  consideration for the  duty of  trust

            between lawyer and client that finds expression in Model Rule

            1.8(a).   Standing alone, such a  transgression would warrant

            significant punishment.   See,  e.g., People v.  Bennett, 843
                                      __________  ______     _______

            P.2d 1385, 1387 (Colo.  1993) (lawyer disbarred for borrowing

-4-

from clients); Lipson v. State Bar, 810 P.2d 1007 (Cal. 1991)
                           ______    _________

            (lawyer suspended).    Here Cordova's  misconduct toward  his

            client comes accompanied  by his misconduct in  the Cruz case

            and his  verbal attacks upon opposing counsel  and the court.

            Cordova had been  warned on  at least two  occasions, by  two

            different courts, that  further intemperate accusations would

            expose  him to  disciplinary action.   He  continued  to make

            vitriolic and, as far as the record shows, unfounded personal

            assaults.   Attorneys  have  on a  number  of occasions  been

            disbarred for such conduct.  See, e.g., In re Evans, 801 F.2d
                                         _________  ___________

            at 706;  In re Whiteside,  386 F.2d  805 (2d Cir.  1967); see
                     _______________                                  ___

            generally, ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct at
            _________

            101:609 and cases cited therein.  We therefore conclude that,

            in this case, the punishment is  not out of proportion to the

            offense.

                                         III
                                         ___

                 We reject Cordova's claim that he was denied due process

            during  the  investigation  and  resolution  of  the  charges

            against him.  Although  attorney discipline proceedings  have

            been called  "quasi-criminal," In  re Ruffalo, 390  U.S. 544,
                                           ______________

            550  (1968), the  due  process rights  of  an attorney  in  a

            disciplinary proceeding "do not extend so far as to guarantee

            the  full panoply  of  rights afforded  to  an accused  in  a

            criminal case."  Razatos v. Colorado Supreme Court,  746 F.2d
                             _______    ______________________

            1429, 1435 (10th  Cir. 1984) (quoting People v. Harfmann, 638
                                                  ______    ________

-5-

P.2d 745, 747 (Col.  1981)).  See also Rosenthal  v. Justices
                                          ________ _________     ________

            of Supreme  Court, 910 F.2d 561,  564 (9th Cir.  1990); In re
            _________________                                       _____

            Daley, 549 F.2d  469, 476 (7th Cir. 1977) and  cases cited at
            _____

            footnote 6; Fitzsimmons v. State Bar of California, 667  P.2d
                        ___________    _______________________

            700,  703-4   (Cal.  1983).    Rather,   an  attorney  facing

            discipline "is entitled to  procedural due process, including

            notice  and  an opportunity  to  be  heard."    Rosenthal  v.
                                                            _________

            Justices of Supreme Court, 910 F.2d at 564.  See also Lowe v.
            _________________________                    ________ ____

            Scott,  959 F.2d  323, 335  (1st Cir.  1992) (due  process in
            _____

            proceeding to  revoke physician's license  requires notice of

            the  charges and  an opportunity  to be  heard).   The record

            shows  that Cordova  received notice  of the  charges against

            him, and had an  opportunity to respond to those  charges, at

            every stage of the proceedings.

                 We also reject Cordova's claim that two of  the district

            court  judges who  took part  in the  decision to  disbar him

            should have refrained from  participation.  At various times,

            Cordova filed  six motions  to disqualify Judges  Laffitte or

            Perez-Gimenez.2   However, his subjective impressions of bias

            or  prejudice, no  matter how  vehemently expressed,  find so

            little, and such weak,  objective corroboration in the record

            that we  see no reason to  deem the judges' decision  to take

            part in the disciplinary  proceedings an abuse of discretion.

____________________

            2.  Several of  the motions also sought  the disqualification
            of  Judge Fuste,  who recused  himself and  did not  sign the
            opinion that disbarred Cordova.

                                         -6-

See Blizard v.  Frechette, 601 F.2d  1217, 1220-21 (1st  Cir.
            ___ _______     _________

            1979).

                                          IV
                                          __

                 Under Fed. R.  App. P. 46(b),  when "it is  shown to  [a

            court  of  appeals]  that any  member  of  its  bar has  been

            suspended or  disbarred from practice  in any other  court of

            record  . . .,  the member will  be subject to  suspension or

            disbarment by  the  court [of  appeals]."   "[T]he record  of

            prior  disciplinary  proceedings  in  district  court are  of

            substantial  relevance in  determining  whether  an  attorney

            should be disbarred from practice before" a court of appeals.

            In re  Evans, 834 F.2d 90,  91 (4th Cir. 1987).   Cordova has
            ____________

            neither disproved the charges  against him, nor explained, as

            Rule  46(b)  requires, why  we  should  not impose  the  same

            sanction  as the  district  court.   Cordova's misconduct  in

            dealings with  his Lopez-Nieves  and Cruz, and  his flagrant,

            repeated  disrespect for  the tribunals  before which  he has

            practiced, warrant his disbarment.

                 The decision of the district court is affirmed.  Cordova
                                                       ________

            is disbarred from practice before this court.
               _________

-7-