John Scannell V. , 447 F. App'x 857 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JOHN R. SCANNELL, WSBA No. 11-35021
31035,
D.C. No. 2:10-rd-00005-JLR
JOHN R. SCANNELL,
MEMORANDUM *
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2011 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District
Judge.***
John R. Scannell appeals the district court’s Order dated December 2, 2010,
disbarring him from the practice of law before the United States District Court for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
the Western District of Washington. The underlying misconduct which led the
district court to impose such discipline is well-chronicled in the Supreme Court of
Washington’s opinion disbarring Scannell from practice in that State, see In re
Scannell, 239 P.3d 332 (Wash. 2010), and we have considered at least one prior
disciplinary appeal by Scannell, see In re Scannell, 411 F. App’x 110 (9th Cir. Jan.
21, 2011) (affirming district court’s decision to impose reciprocal suspension). We
have jurisdiction over the district court’s decision to impose reciprocal disbarment,
see In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
“[A] federal court’s imposition of reciprocal discipline on a member of its
bar based on a state’s disciplinary adjudication is proper unless an independent
review of the record reveals: (1) a deprivation of due process; (2) insufficient proof
of misconduct; or (3) grave injustice which would result from the imposition of
such discipline.” Kramer, 282 F.3d at 724; see also Local Rules W.D. Wash. GR
2(f)(6) (setting forth reciprocal discipline procedures). “[I]t is the [] attorney’s
burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of the[se] []
elements precludes reciprocal discipline.” Kramer, 282 F.3d at 725.
Scannell provides us no basis to question the district court’s interpretation or
application of its Local Rules on attorney conduct in this case. Rather, the record
reveals that the Supreme Court of Washington afforded Scannell ample notice and
2
repeated opportunities to be heard prior to conducting an independent review of the
facts and disbarring him. See, e.g., Scannell, 238 P.3d at 337–38 (detailing
proceedings before the Supreme Court). Responding to Scannell’s objections to
the findings of a hearing officer, the Supreme Court engaged in an independent
review of the record to ensure its adequacy. Id. at 339 (“The record clearly
supports this finding. Scannell’s attempts to avoid subpoenae revealed his intent to
delay and frustrate the proceedings.”). Finally, Scannell has not identified any
injustice that would befall him as a result of his disbarment due to his refusal to
cooperate with the bar association’s investigation of him. See Kramer, 282 F.3d at
727–28 (“In reviewing a reciprocal disbarment, we do not re-try an attorney for
misconduct . . ., [rather] we inquire only whether the punishment imposed by
another disciplinary authority or court was so ill-fitted to an attorney’s adjudicated
misconduct that reciprocal disbarment would result in grave injustice.”). As the
district court noted, instead of cooperating with the bar investigation and fulfilling
his professional obligations to answer to the charges of misconduct, Scannell
obstructed and delayed the investigation and engaged in vexatious tactics to
prevent the uncovering of his own wrongdoing.
We have previously determined that the district court’s imposition of
reciprocal discipline against Scannell was appropriate, see Scannell 411 F. App’x
3
at 112, and we believe the record warrants doing so again. None of Scannell’s
myriad arguments undermine the District Judge’s well-reasoned decision to impose
reciprocal disbarment. Accordingly, the Order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4