Thomas Peter Gannon v. ( 2020 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 19-2837
____________
IN RE: THOMAS PETER GANNON,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-18-mc-00213)
District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 27, 2020
Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 28, 2020)
____________
OPINION*
____________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Thomas Peter Gannon appeals an order suspending him from the practice of law in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for two years.
The Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel initiated disciplinary
proceedings against Gannon in 2017. The following year, the Pennsylvania Disciplinary
Board concluded that Gannon had violated several of Pennsylvania’s Rules of
Professional Conduct. These violations stemmed from Gannon’s abuse of the
Pennsylvania courts in an otherwise straightforward property dispute. According to the
Board, Gannon turned a simple disagreement over $3,577.93 into an eight-year battle that
cost his adversary $87,054.78 in legal fees. The Board recommended a five-year
suspension, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended Gannon for two years.
Soon after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended Gannon, the District Court
issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not impose the same penalty. After
reviewing written submissions and holding a hearing, a three-judge District Court panel
recommended that the Court impose reciprocal discipline. The Court adopted the
recommendation and suspended Gannon for two years.
In reciprocal disciplinary proceedings, district courts review the state record “for
consistency with the requirements of due process, adequacy of proof and absence of any
indication that imposing discipline would result in grave injustice.” In re Surrick, 338
F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84, 88 (2d Cir. 1994)). “We
review district courts’ decisions regarding the regulation of attorneys who appear before
them for abuse of discretion.” Id. at 229 (citation omitted).
2
Gannon claims the Disciplinary Board deprived him of due process by initiating
proceedings against him without following the procedures in Pennsylvania Disciplinary
Board Rule 87.7, which sets forth requirements for notifying an attorney of a complaint.
He contends the Board acted outside its jurisdiction and failed to provide him the name
and address of the complainant. But Rule 87.7 does not require disclosure of the
complainant’s information when the Office of Disciplinary Counsel itself initiates
disciplinary proceedings. Pa. Disciplinary Bd. R. 87.7(b)(1). And the Board had
jurisdiction to investigate Gannon on its own initiative, as it did here, pursuant to
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board Rule 87.1. So the District Court did not err in rejecting
Gannon’s due process arguments.
Gannon also argues the Disciplinary Board lacked sufficient evidence to prove he
violated any Rules of Professional Conduct and that imposing reciprocal discipline would
cause a grave injustice. We disagree. The District Court, in carrying out its duty to
independently review the state disciplinary proceedings, performed a detailed review of
the evidence supporting each violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Gannon
failed to show “by clear and convincing evidence” the presence of a serious infirmity in
the state proceedings. In re Surrick, 338 F.3d at 232 (quoting In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721,
724–25 (9th Cir. 2002)). So the Court did not err in rejecting these claims either.
In sum, our “extremely limited” review of the District Court’s reciprocal discipline
determination leads us to agree with its conclusions. Id. at 232 (quoting In re Abrams,
521 F.2d 1094, 1101 (3d Cir. 1975)). Ample evidence supported the Pennsylvania
3
Supreme Court’s decision to suspend Gannon, and the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing reciprocal discipline. We will affirm.
4