August 2007
Featured Disciplinary Case
Topic
Based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court should not review a state court denial of application for admission to the bar without examination notwithstanding the fact that the state court provided no reason for the decision to deny the application.
Summary
Douglas J. Raymond v. Thomas J. Moyer, et al., 2007 WL 2372296 (6th Cir. August 21, 2007). Douglas J. Raymond is a medical malpractice attorney admitted to practice law in Colorado, Michigan, and Missouri. As part of his practice, Raymond appeared pro hac vice in Ohio state courts forty-three times. Raymond opined that he "frequently…represented individuals…victimized by the wrongful and illegal actions of individuals, corporations and organizations which wield great economic and political power in the State of Ohio and elsewhere." Raymond, a Boulder County Colorado practitioner, believes that he, "frequently has spoken out on matters of great public concern in the State of Ohio and elsewhere regarding the wrongful and illegal actions of economically and politically powerful interests in the State of Ohio and elsewhere." In 2004, he applied for admission to the Ohio bar without examination. Seven months later, the Ohio Supreme Court denied his application for admission without providing any reason for the denial. Raymond filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration. The Court denied the relief he sought, again without providing a reason for the decision. Undeterred, Raymond filed a federal civil rights action against the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court alleging that, by denying him admission to practice law in Ohio without examination, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the First Amendment, the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were all violated. A judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio concluded that the defendants were entitled to judicial immunity as to all of Raymond's claims and dismissed the suit. Raymond timely appealed. After the parties submitted briefs, the appellate court requested and received supplemental briefing from both parties addressing whether the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Interestingly, neither party had ever raised the issue of federal jurisdiction on appeal. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that lower federal courts have no jurisdiction in "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." If there is some other source of injury, such as a third party's actions, however, then a federal plaintiff can assert an independent claim because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not prohibit federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction where a plaintiff's claim is merely a general challenge to the constitutionality of the state law applied in the state action, rather than a challenge to the law's application in a particular state case." As a result, the dispositive issue for the Court of Appeals was whether the Ohio decision denying Raymond admission was a state-court judgment for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision denying Raymond the ability to practice law in Ohio was judicial in nature. Under the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" over "[a]dmission to the practice of law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of law." The Ohio Supreme Court's rules governing the bar permit applications for admission without examination and call for the Ohio Supreme Court to make the final decision on the application as follows:
The Court shall review the application and in its sole discretion shall approve or disapprove the application. In reaching its decision, the Court shall consider… [w]hether the applicant's past practice of law is of such character, description and recency as shall satisfy the Court that the applicant currently possesses the legal skills deemed adequate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio without examination.
OHIO SUP.CT. R. GOV. BAR 1, § 9(F)(1).
Based upon this authority, the Sixth Circuit ruled that, under Ohio law, the state's decision was not legislative, administrative, or ministerial in nature, but instead, "involved a 'judicial inquiry' in which the court was called upon to investigate, declare, and enforce 'liabilities as they [stood] on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist.' Trying to distance himself from this analysis, however, Raymond unsuccessfully argued that, in essence, the state court did not act 'judiciously', and that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine should not apply because the Ohio Supreme Court did not provide him with a hearing, an opportunity to respond to any alleged deficiencies in his application, or even a reason for denying his application. The Court of Appeals noted:
We are sympathetic to Raymond's argument, as it seems fundamentally unfair that he could be denied admission to practice law by the Ohio Supreme Court and have as his only recourse the opportunity to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, without a reasoned decision or any apparent state-court record on which to base his petition. The possibility for abuse is high when a court can hide its reasoning and knows that its decision is virtually unreviewable, and this possibility raises particular concerns when, as in this case, the decision at issue can carry with it severe collateral consequences.
The Court emphasized that its decision did not bar Raymond from bringing a future general challenge to the rules and practices of the Ohio Supreme Court regarding its consideration of applications for admission to practice law without examination. It noted that the defendants' attorney stated at oral argument that it was the practice of the Ohio Supreme Court never to grant a hearing or state reasons for its decision when it denied an application for admission to practice law without examination, practices that the Court of Appeals believed, "raise significant due process concerns." Therefore, if Raymond planned to apply again for admission to practice law in Ohio without examination, and is denied, he could likely establish standing to bring a general challenge to the rules and practices of the Ohio Supreme Court, and nothing in the Court of Appeal decision could be read to imply that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the concept of res judicata, judicial immunity, or any other defense would prevent him from bringing such a federal challenge.
