In the Matter of Edmond C. Fletcher

Fourth Circuit

In the Matter of Edmond C. Fletcher

221 F.2d 477, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3529

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1955

Docket6935

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 221 F.2d 477 (In the Matter of Edmond C. Fletcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Matter of Edmond C. Fletcher, 221 F.2d 477, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3529 (4th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Edmond C. Fletcher from an order denying his motion to vacate an order of June 20, 1933, which disbarred him and forbade him to practice in the court below. We have had occasion to consider the validity of this order on two appeals to this court in which Mr. Fletcher had been found guilty of contempt in disobeying it. Fletcher v. United States, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 373, and In re Fletcher, 4 Cir., 216 F.2d 915. We need not repeat what was said in the opinions in those cases, which thoroughly support the action of the court below in denying the motion.

It is argued that the court was without jurisdiction to enter the order of disbarment because it was recited therein that appellant was admitted to practice on the sole ground that he had been duly licensed and admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, whereas the minutes of the court showed merely that he was admitted on motion with no mention in the minutes of his having been admitted in the District of Columbia. The answer, of course, is that, while there is nothing to show that the recital in the order of disbarment was not correct, the matter which justified the order of disbarment was, not the ground of appellant’s admission to practice, but the fact that he had been disbarred by the courts of the District of Columbia. The court below had inherent power to disbar for cause any lawyer practicing before it; and it was manifestly sufficient cause for disbarring a non-resident lawyer that he had been disbarred by the courts of the district of his residence. See our rule 6, section 3.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Edmond C. Fletcher from an order denying his motion to vacate an order of June 20, 1933, which disbarred him and forbade him to practice in the court below. We have had occasion to consider the validity of this order on two appeals to this court in which Mr. Fletcher had been found guilty of contempt in disobeying it. Fletcher v. United States, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 373, and In re Fletcher, 4 Cir., 216 F.2d 915. We need not repeat what was said in the opinions in those cases, which thoroughly support the action of the court below in denying the motion.

It is argued that the court was without jurisdiction to enter the order of disbarment because it was recited therein that appellant was admitted to practice on the sole ground that he had been duly licensed and admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, whereas the minutes of the court showed merely that he was admitted on motion with no mention in the minutes of his having been admitted in the District of Columbia. The answer, of course, is that, while there is nothing to show that the recital in the order of disbarment was not correct, the matter which justified the order of disbarment was, not the ground of appellant’s admission to practice, but the fact that he had been disbarred by the courts of the District of Columbia. The court below had inherent power to disbar for cause any lawyer practicing before it; and it was manifestly sufficient cause for disbarring a non-resident lawyer that he had been disbarred by the courts of the district of his residence. See our rule 6, section 3.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 F.2d 477, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-edmond-c-fletcher-ca4-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack