Title: Tidwell v. Virginia State Bar

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

VIRGINIA:
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia Held at the Supreme Court 
Building in the City of Richmond on Friday, the 2nd day of 
November, 2001. 
 
 
Drew Virgil Tidwell, 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
 against 
Record No. 010692 
 
VSB Docket No. 00-000-1453 
 
Virginia State Bar,  
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
Upon an appeal of right from an order entered by the 
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board on the 8th day of 
December, 2000. 
 
 
 
Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument by the 
appellant, in proper person, and by counsel for the appellee, the 
Court is of opinion there is no error in the order of the Virginia 
State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking appellant's license to 
practice law in this Commonwealth pursuant to the provisions of 
Part Six, § IV, Para. 13(G)(2001) of the Rules of Court (Paragraph 
13(G)). 
On September 3, 1999, appellant, Drew Virgil Tidwell, entered 
a plea of guilty in the state of New York to a class E felony, 
Leaving the Scene of an Incident without Reporting, New York 
Vehicle & Traffic Law § 600(2)(a).  At the plea hearing, the 
prosecutor represented to the court that Tidwell "will surrender 
his license to practice law immediately – immediately upon his 
entering this plea."  Thereafter, the court accepted the plea and 
entered an order of conviction.  Upon notification of Tidwell's 
 
2
conviction, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate 
Division, Fourth Judicial Department, entered an order striking 
Tidwell's name from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice 
law in New York state.  Pursuant to New York Judiciary Law 
§ 90(4)(a), Tidwell's disbarment was automatic on his conviction of 
a felony, and no additional procedures were provided under these 
circumstances. 
 Paragraph 13(G) requires that the Disciplinary Board issue an 
order to show cause why an attorney should not be disbarred from 
the practice of law in this jurisdiction when the Disciplinary 
Board is notified that the attorney has been disbarred from the 
practice of law in another jurisdiction. The rule provides only 
three grounds upon which an attorney, in response to a show cause 
order, may allege that disbarment is improper. 
The Disciplinary Board received notice that Tidwell was 
disbarred by New York state and issued a show cause order directed 
to him.  In response, Tidwell alleged that disbarment was improper 
because "the record of the proceeding in the other jurisdiction 
would clearly show that such proceeding was so lacking in notice or 
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a denial of due process."  
Part Six, § IV, Para. 13 (G)(1).  Following a hearing, the 
Disciplinary Board found that Tidwell failed to show that he was 
denied due process and ordered that his license to practice law in 
this Commonwealth be revoked.  
 
3
On appeal, Tidwell's primary complaint is that the 
Disciplinary Board erred in concluding that he failed to show that 
he was denied due process because he established that New York did 
not afford him the opportunity for notice and hearing prior to 
disbarment.  In making this assertion, Tidwell maintains that under 
Paragraph 13(G), the relevant proceeding under review is the 
disbarment proceeding alone which, under New York law, consists of 
automatic disbarment upon conviction of a felony. 
This construction of Paragraph 13(G) is too narrow.  It is 
well settled that legislatures have a right to prescribe standards 
of practice for attorneys and may identify situations in which an 
attorney's misdeeds will result in automatic disbarment.  See, 
e.g., Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 195-96 (1898); In re 
Collins, 188 Cal. 701, 704-06, 206 P. 990, 991-92 (1922).  
Therefore, the question in this case is not whether automatic 
disbarment violates due process, but whether the record shows that 
the entire process resulting in disbarment was so flawed that it 
denied Tidwell due process.* Thus the Disciplinary Board properly 
considered the record of the criminal proceeding along with the 
disbarment proceeding in making its determination. 
In considering a license revocation order of the Disciplinary 
Board, this Court makes an independent review of the record, giving 
                     
* Tidwell's specific assignment of error challenging the 
admission of the transcript of the criminal proceeding was waived 
because he did not object to its admission at the hearing before 
the Disciplinary Board. 
 
4
the factual findings of the Disciplinary Board substantial weight 
and viewing them as prima facie correct.  The conclusions of the 
Board will be sustained unless they are not justified by a 
reasonable view of the evidence or are contrary to the law.  Blue 
v. Seventh Dist. Comm. of Virginia State Bar, 220 Va. 1056, 1061-
62, 265 S.E.2d 753, 757 (1980). 
The record clearly establishes that Tidwell was not denied 
notice because he had notice of the crime of which he was charged 
and notice that conviction of such crime would result in 
disbarment.  
Similarly, the record shows Tidwell was not denied the 
opportunity to be heard.  Tidwell had the right to defend against 
the criminal charge but he chose to plead guilty.   Regardless of 
whether Tidwell "surrendered his license" or his license was 
revoked automatically, he knew that as a result of pleading guilty 
to the felony, he would be disbarred.  Tidwell does not claim he 
was coerced or otherwise denied due process in connection with his 
guilty plea and criminal conviction.  He chose to plead guilty and 
was fully aware of the consequences that decision would have for 
his law license.  Furthermore, Tidwell was entitled to appeal the 
disbarment order to the New York Court of Appeals, which he did not 
do.  (N.Y. Jud. Law § 90(8)). 
Based on our review of the record, we hold that the 
Disciplinary Board did not err in concluding that Tidwell failed to 
satisfy his burden to show that he was denied due process because 
 
5
the evidence before the Disciplinary Board supported a finding that 
the New York proceedings resulting in Tidwell's disbarment did not 
violate Tidwell's due process rights.  
 
Tidwell's remaining assignments of error are without merit. 
 
Accordingly, the order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary 
Board is affirmed.  The appellant shall pay to the appellee $30.00 
damages. 
 
This order shall be certified to the Virginia State Bar 
Disciplinary Board and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. 
 
A Copy, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Teste: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David B. Beach, 
Clerk