Stein v. Legal Advertising Committee of the Disciplinary Board

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 22 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
STUART L. STEIN and STUART L.
STEIN, P.A., a professional law
corporation d/b/a The Stein Law Firm,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 03-2169
v. (D. New Mexico)
LEGAL ADVERTISING (D.C. No. CIV 03-631 LFG/RHS)
COMMITTEE OF THE
DISCIPLINARY BOARD, STAN
HARRIS, Chair, C. BRIAN
CHARLTON, CHAD D. COOPER,
JOHN P. COSENTINO, MICHAEL P.
FRICKE, KYLE H. MOBERLY,
BARBARA MONTOYA, TROY W.
PRICHARD, and GREGORY P.
SHERMAN, all members of the LAC;
DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW
MEXICO, MICHAEL H. HOSES,
Chair, JAMES F. BECKLEY, SASHA
SIEMEL, RICHARD J. PARMLEY,
JR., VICTOR A. TITUS, MIKE G.
PAULOWSKY, DOROTHY S.
PETERS, LARRY RAMIREZ,
ROGER COPPLE and ROBERT S.
MURRAY, all members of the
Disciplinary Board, and HON. PETRA
MAES, HON. PAMELA B.
MINZNER, HON. PATRICIO M.
SERNA, HON. RICHARD C.
BOSSON, and HON. EDWARD L.
CHAVEZ, the Chief Justice and
Justices of the Supreme Court of New
Mexico,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE , McCONNELL , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Stuart L. Stein appeals the district court’s decision to abstain under the
Younger doctrine in his case against the entities and individuals responsible for
disciplining New Mexico attorneys (“Defendants”). He argues that the state
proceedings do not satisfy the conditions for a Younger abstention because they
are no longer in progress and will not provide an adequate forum for his federal
claims. Because we find that the state proceedings are still in progress and will
provide an adequate forum to hear Mr. Stein’s federal claims, we AFFIRM the
judgment of the district court and DENY all of Mr. Stein’s pending motions.
I. Factual Background.
Mr. Stein is a New Mexico attorney specializing in estate planning. He
regularly presents seminars on creating living trusts and also advises clients on
how to structure their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. He solicits
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
*
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
potential clients through print advertising. Until recently, New Mexico attorneys
wishing to advertise had to submit potential advertisements to the Legal
Advertising Committee (“LAC”) for approval prior to public dissemination. 1
If
the LAC found that a proposed advertisement violated New Mexico legal
advertising regulations it would issue a report to the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico (“Disciplinary Board”) if the attorney
disseminated the advertisement without correction. After receiving a report from
the LAC, the Disciplinary Board would have the option to file formal charges
against the attorney. If the Disciplinary Board filed formal charges, the
Disciplinary Board would also appoint a hearing officer to preside over the
proceedings. Following an adverse decision by the hearing officer an attorney
could appeal to the full Disciplinary Board and, if unsuccessful, to the New
Mexico Supreme Court.
On June 28, 2002, Sally Scott-Mullins, Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel
of the Disciplinary Board, sent a letter to Mr. Stein notifying him that the LAC
forwarded complaints to her regarding legal advertisements he had submitted.
The letter suggested changes and deletions to the advertisements. The letter also
informed Mr. Stein that if he made the changes he would receive an informal
After the district court issued its opinion in this case the New Mexico
1
Supreme Court dissolved the LAC. See NMRA, Rules 16-706 and 16-707 (2004).
-3-
admonition, and if he did not he would face formal disciplinary charges. The
letter required a response by July 15, 2002. Mr. Stein requested, and received, an
extension until August 5, 2002.
A. Stein I.
Instead of responding to the letter, Mr. Stein filed a federal lawsuit on July
29, 2002 against the LAC, the Disciplinary Board, and the New Mexico Supreme
Court. See Stein v. Legal Advertising Committee of Disciplinary Bd., 272
F.Supp.2d 1260 (D.N.M. 2003) (hereinafter Stein I). He sought a preliminary
injunction prohibiting the Disciplinary Board from acting against him. He alleged
violations of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal
Protection Clause, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In response, the Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss based on abstention, exhaustion, and/or immunity,
motions for partial summary judgment on each claim asserted, and a response to
the preliminary injunction motion.
On October 22, 2002, Ms. Scott-Mullins filed formal charges against Mr.
Stein. The Disciplinary Board convened a hearing committee to consider the
evidence and make findings of fact regarding the charges (hereinafter, Stein
Disciplinary Proceeding). On February 6, 2003, the district court granted the
Defendants’ motion to dismiss on Younger abstention grounds, concluding that
-4-
the Stein Disciplinary Proceeding was in progress and that Mr. Stein would have
an opportunity to raise any constitutional claims during that proceeding.
B. Stein II.
On March 17, 2003, the hearing committee issued an order noting that any
arguments Mr. Stein wished to raise about the constitutionality of the New
Mexico Advertising Rules could be raised by a motion to dismiss, as an
affirmative defense in his answer, or both. On April 9, 2003, the LAC denied two
new advertisements submitted by Mr. Stein. The LAC also advised Mr. Stein that
if he did not terminate use of these advertisements he might face professional
discipline.
In response to denial of the new advertisements, Mr. Stein filed another
federal lawsuit (hereinafter Stein II). The complaint in Stein II alleged violations
similar to those alleged in Stein I. On April 21, 2003, the Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss. On April 22, 2003 the district court issued an order dismissing
the case without prejudice, again on Younger abstention grounds.
C. Stein III.
After Stein II there were two notable developments. First, Mr. Stein filed a
counterclaim and a third party claim in the Stein Disciplinary Proceeding. Ms.
Scott-Mullins filed a motion to strike these claims because the hearing committee
had already advised Mr. Stein to file any constitutional claims in a motion to
-5-
dismiss or in his answer. Second, Mr. Stein filed a petition before the
Disciplinary Board seeking declaratory relief and appealing the LAC’s denial of
the Stein II advertisements. In response, the Disciplinary Board issued an order
staying the Stein Disciplinary Proceeding. The Disciplinary Board issued the
stay because the constitutional issues raised by the petition for declaratory relief
and the appeal of the Stein II advertisements encompassed the same constitutional
issues implicated in the Stein Disciplinary Proceeding.
On May 27, 2003, Mr. Stein filed a third federal lawsuit against the
Defendants (hereinafter Stein III). The complaint was largely similar to Stein I &
II, but alleged that the two developments since Stein II eliminated the abstention
rationale. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary
judgment. On June 17, 2003, the district court dismissed the case without
prejudice on Younger abstention grounds. Mr. Stein filed a timely appeal.
II. Analysis.
A district court’s abstention under Younger is subject to de novo review.
Amanatullah v. Colorado Board of Medical Examiners , 187 F.3d 1160, 1163
(10th Cir. 1999). A federal court must abstain under Younger if (1) there is a
state, civil, criminal or administrative proceeding that is in progress and is
judicial in nature; (2) the state proceeding provides an adequate forum to hear a
litigant’s federal claims; and (3) the state proceedings involve important state
-6-
interests. Id. at 1163. In this appeal, Mr. Stein argues that the state disciplinary
proceedings are no longer in progress and that the state is not providing an
adequate forum for him to present his constitutional challenge to New Mexico’s
advertising regulations.
A. The in progress requirement.
Mr. Stein argues that the state proceedings are no longer in progress
because of the stay of the Stein Disciplinary Proceeding and the uncertain status
of his appeal of the rejection of the advertisements at issue in Stein II . In order to
show that state proceedings are no longer in progress a litigant must show
exhaustion of his state appellate remedies. Morrow v. Winslow , 94 F.3d 1386,
1392 (10th Cir. 1996). We take judicial notice of an order issued by the New
Mexico Supreme Court on October 26, 2004, stating that the Disciplinary Board
has jurisdiction to hear Mr. Stein’s petition for declaratory judgment. This order
demonstrates that Mr. Stein has yet to exhaust his state appellate remedies, and
consequently his arguments are, at best, premature. He cites no authority for his
contention that temporarily staying one element in a group of related state
proceedings provides an exception to the exhaustion rule. The exhaustion rule is
a clear and sensible approach to Younger analysis, and we see no reason to
compromise it. Accordingly, we conclude that the proceedings are still in
progress for Younger purposes.
-7-
B. Adequate forum.
In the context of state administrative proceedings, there is an adequate
forum for Younger purposes if a litigant may raise federal claims during state
court review of the proceedings. Amanatullah , 187 F.3d at 1164 (quoting Ohio
Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. , 477 U.S. 619, 629
(1986)) . Mr. Stein does not argue that New Mexico law precludes him from
asserting his federal claims during state court review of the Disciplinary Board’s
actions. Instead he offers two arguments that are legally irrelevant and
demonstrably inaccurate. First, he argues that there is some doubt whether the
Disciplinary Board will entertain his petition for a declaratory judgment on his
constitutional claims. Second, he contends that there are no procedures to govern
a request for a declaratory judgment before the Disciplinary Board. The October
26, 2004 Order of the New Mexico Supreme Court dispenses with both of these
claims. The Order provides that the Disciplinary Board has jurisdiction over the
petition for a declaratory judgment and should use the procedures outlined in
NMRA, Rule 17-314(A) to govern these proceedings. Thus, Mr. Stein will get a
chance to present his federal claims in a structured state administrative
proceeding—a setting that is adequate for Younger purposes.
-8-
III. Conclusion.
The State of New Mexico is attempting to provide Mr. Stein with a forum
to present his federal challenges to New Mexico’s attorney advertising rules.
Despite being met with Mr. Stein’s increasingly inventive motions at every turn,
the proceedings continue to meet the conditions that require a Younger abstention.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the ruling of the district court and DENY all of Mr.
Stein’s pending motions.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-9-