IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41194

In re: ROBERT LOUIS BOOKER,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:14-MC-8

Before DAVIS, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Booker was suspended from the roll of attorneys admitted to 

practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas 

(the “Eastern District”) for three years. In June 2015, Booker appealed that 

suspension, claiming the district court’s order imposing the suspension lacked

the requisite findings. Booker also argued that the district court did not afford 

him sufficient due process. On August 3, 2015, we remanded this case to the 

district court for further factual findings. See In re Booker, 611 F. App’x 834, 

835 (5th Cir. 2015). We concluded that Booker received adequate due process 

during his disciplinary proceedings and rejected Booker’s due process

arguments on the merits. Id. at 837. However, we could not determine from 

the record whether the district court found that Booker acted in bad faith by

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41194 Document: 00513314572 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2015
No. 14-41194

2

clear and convincing evidence, as is required when a court sanctions an 

attorney under its inherent powers. See In re Sealed Appellant, 194 F.3d 666, 

670–71 (5th Cir. 1999); In re Thalheim, 853 F.2d 383, 389 (5th Cir. 1988). We 

now consider the district court’s findings and conclusions on remand.1 

The district court assigned the case to a magistrate judge for a report 

and recommendation and adopted the report and recommendation over 

Booker’s objections. The report and recommendation discussed the conduct on 

which Booker’s sanction is founded and specifically found clear and convincing 

evidence that Booker acted in bad faith on at least two occasions.2 The district 

court determined that these findings and conclusions are correct.

In a disciplinary proceeding such as this one, we review de novo whether 

an attorney’s actions or misconduct are subject to sanction, and we review the 

district court’s choice of sanctions for an abuse of discretion. In re Sealed 

Appellant, 194 F.3d. at 670. The magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation thoroughly discusses Booker’s misconduct, and in our August 

3, 2015, opinion, we discussed the extensive consideration this matter has 

received from multiple trial court judges in the Eastern District. See In re 

Booker, 611 F. App’x at 835–36. After our remand, the case was reassigned to 

yet another district judge as a result of the retirement of Judge Davis. Booker 

has thus received review of his conduct from the original magistrate judge and 

 

1 On November 25, 2015, we ordered Booker to file any supplemental briefing by 

December 15, 2015. Booker has not supplemented his brief.

2 The magistrate judge found the circumstances of Booker’s failure to disclose certain 

disciplinary proceedings when he applied for admission to the Eastern District of Texas

“establish intentional deception by Mr. Booker in his communications with the Court that 

rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Booker acted in bad faith.” The 

magistrate judge also found by clear and convincing evidence that Booker “acted in bad faith 

by seeking to withdraw from the representation of and collect an unreasonable and 

unconscionable fee from his clients.” 

 Case: 14-41194 Document: 00513314572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2015
No. 14-41194

3

district judge who reported his conduct, from all the district judges of the 

Eastern District who unanimously voted to refer the matter for disciplinary 

proceedings, from the magistrate judge who conducted the sanctions 

proceedings, and from two district judges who reviewed the magistrate judge’s 

findings over the course of these proceedings. Now three circuit judges have 

reviewed this matter (twice), and we agree that clear and convincing evidence 

supports the conclusion that Booker engaged in misconduct and acted in bad 

faith. We find no abuse of discretion in his three-year suspension from practice 

before the Eastern District of Texas. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-41194 Document: 00513314572 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/18/2015