In Re: Lijyasu M. Kandekore , 140 F. App'x 848 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 20, 2005
No. 04-16328
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00029-MC-WJZ
IN RE:
LIJYASU M. KANDEKORE,
Petitioner.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 20, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lijyasu M. Kandekore appeals the district court’s order denying his petition
for reinstatement to its bar. He makes three arguments. First, Kandekore argues
the district court erred by denying his petition for reinstatement because, he says,
its own rules do not require state bar membership for a reinstatement to be granted.
Second, Kandekore argues the district court violated his due process rights by
engrafting state bar membership onto Rule IX of the Rules Governing Attorney
Discipline. According to Kandekore, Rule 1 of the Special Rules Governing the
Admission and Practice of Attorneys is applicable only to an attorney’s initial
admission to the federal bar, and Rule 3 does not apply to “discipline,” but rather,
only to retention of federal bar membership. Kandekore maintains that making
federal bar reinstatement contingent on an attorney’s reinstatement to the state bar
renders the federal court subordinate to the state court and allows the district court
to abdicate its responsibility to apply its own rules. Kandekore contends that, even
if Rules 1 and 3 apply, their provisions conflict with Rule IX, and any conflict
should be interpreted in his favor. Third, Kandekore argues his due process rights
were violated because he satisfied all of the criteria set forth in Rule IX, but
arbitrarily was denied reinstatement based on a separate rule requiring state bar
membership for continued federal bar membership. The district court did not err,
and we affirm its denial of reinstatement.
2
I. DISCUSSION
This Circuit has not yet indicated the standard under which we review an
order denying a disbarred attorney’s petition for reinstatement to a district court
bar. A disbarment order, however, is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. In the
Matter of Calvo, 88 F.3d 962, 967 (11th Cir. 1996). Under any standard of
review, Kandekore’s appeal fails.
In the context of disbarment, due process violations are limited to “want of
notice or opportunity to be heard.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
“[D]isbarment by federal courts does not automatically flow from disbarment by
state courts,” but rather, an attorney’s continued membership in the federal bar
must be determined through “intrinsic consideration of the underlying record.” In
re Wilkes, 494 F.2d 472, 474–75 (5th Cir. 1974) (citing Theard v. United States,
354 U.S. 278, 77 S. Ct. 1274 (1957)).
Under the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to
Rule 1, “[a]n attorney is qualified for admission to the bar of this district if the
attorney is (1) currently a member in good standing of The Florida Bar; and
(2) has received a passing score on the Uniform Examination.” S.D. Fla. Local
Rules, Special Rules Governing the Admission and Practice of Attorneys, Rule 1.
Rule 3 states that “[t]o remain an attorney in good standing of the bar of this
3
Court, each member must remain an active attorney in good standing of the
Florida Bar.” S.D. Fla. Local Rules, Special Rules Governing the Admission and
Practice of Attorneys, Rule 3. Under the Rules Governing Attorney Discipline,
Rule IX provides (1) a disbarred attorney may file a petition for reinstatement with
the Chief Judge of the district court, and (2) a hearing shall be held, during which
the attorney has the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, he has
the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in the law required for
admission to practice, and readmission would not be detrimental to the
administration of justice. S.D. Fla. Local Rules, Rules Governing Attorney
Discipline, IX-C.
All of the local rules at issue here were promulgated by the same district
court and address a common subject, membership in the district court’s bar. As
with a statute, the rules should be read in pari materia, and if any interpretation is
necessary, they should be construed consistently with one another. See In re
Bateman, 331 F.3d 821, 825 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Provisions within a statute are read
to be consistent whenever possible.”). Rules 1 and 3 are not inconsistent with
Rule IX, and state bar membership is a threshold requirement for admission to the
district court bar. Whether for admission to the district court bar, retention of
membership, or readmission, under the Rules of the Southern District of Florida an
4
attorney must be a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.
Kandekore’s claim that “engrafting” a requirement of membership in the
state bar onto Rule IX violates his due process rights is without merit. First,
Rule IX should be construed consistently with Rules 1 and 3. Second, in the area
of bar-related issues, due process is limited to “want of notice or opportunity to be
heard.” Calvo, 88 F.3d at 967. Kandekore had such notice and opportunity here.
Similarly, as to Kandekore’s third argument on appeal, his due process rights were
not violated because the district court did not arbitrarily deny his reinstatement.
II. CONCLUSION
Because Kandekore is no longer a member of the Florida Bar, and state bar
membership is required for an attorney to be reinstated to the district court bar, the
district court did not err by denying his petition for reinstatement.
AFFIRMED.
5