FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JAN 10, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14476 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 29 -M C -4 I N R E : B E N J A M I N E I C H H O L Z , A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 10, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B enj am i n E i chho l z app ea l s hi s tw o yea r s uspensi on fr om the pract i ce of l aw b e f o r e th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u r t f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia . F ol l ow i ng a hea ri ng on an order t o sho w cause, the bank rupt cycourtfoun d that E i c hhol z ha d vi ol a t e d the G e or gi aR ul e s of P r of e s s i ona l C onduc tby br e a c hi ng2

dut i e s ow e d t o hi s c l i e nt s unde rR ul e s 1. 1, 1. 2, 1. 3, a nd 1. 4 a nd t o hi s pr of e s s i on u n d e rR u le s 5 .3 a n d 5 .5 . T h e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t f o u n d th a t E ic h h o lz k n o w in g ly vi ol a t e d R ul e s 5. 3 a nd 5. 5 a nd vi ol a t e d the othe rrul e s w i th gr os s ne gl i ge nc e . T he b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t f

u r th e rf o u n d th a t th e s e in f

r a c tio n s w e r e a g g r a v a te d b y h is pa tt e rn of

m i s c onduc t , s ubs t a nt i a l e xpe r i e nc e pr a c t i c i ng l a w , l a c k of a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty , a nd the vul ne r abi l i ty of hi s c l i e nt s . T he ba nkrupt c y c our ti s s ue d a re po rtand recom m endat i on t o the di stri ctcourt , w hi ch re com m ended a tw o year suspensi on of hi s pri vi l ege t o p ra ct i ce i n the D i stri ctC ou rtfor the S ou thern D i stri ct of G e or gi af

ol l ow e d by aone y e a rpr oba t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tr e vi e w e d the re po rtand recom m endat i on al on g w i th the ent i re re cord. T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed th e b a n k ru p t c y c o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g s a n d i m p o s e d th e r e c o m m e n d e d s a n c t i o n s . On appeal , E i chho l z a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on i n fi nd i ng that c le a ra n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d th e c o n c lu s io n th a t h e v io la te d G e o r g ia R ul es of P rofe ss i on al C on du ct . F urther, he as se rt s thathi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol a t e d a nd the s a nc t i ons w e r e t oo ha r s h. W e rev i ew d i sci p l i n ary o rd ers en t ered b y th e d i stri ctco u rtfo r a cl ear ab u se o f d is c r e tio n . See I

n T he M at terof C alvo , 8 8 F . 3 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) . “ An ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n a r is e s w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d e c is io n r e s ts u p o n ac le a r ly e rr one ous f

i ndi ng of f a c t , a n e rr a ntc onc l us i on of l a w , ora n i m pr ope rappl i c a t i on3

of l aw t o fac t . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. B aker , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 2 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . F e d e r a l c o u r ts h a v e th e in h e r e n t au th o r ity to s a n c tio n la w y e r s f o rm is c o n d u c t. In r e Fin ke ls te in , 901 F . 2d 1560, 1564 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . T he G e or gi aR ul e s of P rofe ss i on al C on du ctand the A B A M od el R ul es of P rofe ss i on al C on du ctgo vern att orneys prac t i ci ng before the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the S ou thern D is tr ic t o f

G e o r g ia . S .D . G a . R . 8 3 .5 ( d ) . W e f i nd thatthere w as cl ea r e vi dence thatE i chho l z w as re peat edl y der el i ct i n h i s dut i es t o h i s c l i ent s and t o the court . A tthe heari ng before the bank rupt cy c our t , E i c hhol z ’ s c l i e nt s t e s t i f i e d tha tthe y l a c ke d s i gni f i c a ntc ont a c ta nd m ea ni ng ful com m un i ca t i on w i th h i m . O ne cl i entt es t i fi ed thatE i chho l z had se tt l ed a c as e w i tho utprop erse tt l em entautho ri ty. E i chho l z’ s f orm erem pl oyee t es t i fi ed tha ts he he a r d f

r om ups e tc l i e nt s w ho di d notknow tha tthe i rc a s e w a s s e tt l e d or had i ss ues w i th thei r s ett l em ent . E vi dence s up po rt s afi nd i ng thatE i chho l z s ett l ed c a s e s w ith o u t s e ttle m e n t au th o r ity . I n a d d itio n , E ic h h o lz r e p e a te d ly f a ile d to appe a rbe f

or e the ba nkrupt c y c our ton m ot i on he a r i ngs ort o e ns ur e the pr e s e nc e of a de qua t e s ubs t i tut e c ouns e l . F ur the rm or e , hi s f orm e re m pl oy e e s t e s t i f

i e d tha tnonl a w y e re m pl oy e e s r out i ne l y s i gne d E i c hhol z ’ s na m e t o doc um e nt s f i l e d i n the bank rupt cycourt , and thathe di d n otprepar e or r evi ew these do cum ent s bef ore th e y w e r e f

ile d . A d d itio n a l e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t E ic h h o lz f a ile d to s u p e rv is e h is4

em pl oyee s, al l ow i ng these no n-l aw ye r e m pl oyee s t o eng age i n act i vi t i es that r e qui r e d l e ga l know l e dge s uc h a s e xpl a i ni ng l e ga l doc um e nt s t o c l i e nt s . G i ve n the evi dence, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n fi nd i ng thatsuch cond uct cl ea rl y vi ol at ed the G eorgi a R ul es re qu i ri ng com pet entre pres ent at i on (R ul e 1. 1), r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f

c lie n t’s in te r e s ts ( R u le 1 .2 ) , d ilig e n c e ( R u le 1 .3 ) a n d r e a s o n ab le c om m uni c a t i on w i th c l i e nt s ( R ul e 1. 4) , a s w e l l a s thos e r e qui r i ng s upe rvi s i on of non- l aw y e re m pl oy e e s ( R ul e 5. 3) a nd pr ohi bi t i ng a s s i s t i ng othe r s i n the u n au th o r iz e d p r a c tic e o f la w ( R u le 5 .5 .) . W e a ls o f

in d th a t E ic h h o lz ’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts w e r e n o t v io la te d . E ic h h o lz w a s g iv e n b o th n o tic e a n d a n o p p o r tu n ity to b e h e a r d b y th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t. E i chho l z w as pres entatthe bank rupt cycourt ’ s heari ng , abl e t o p re se ntevi dence, a nd c onf r ontw i tne s s e s a ga i ns thi m . T he he ar i ng, w hi c h f ol l ow e d a n or de rt o s how c au s e , m e t th e s ta n d a r d s o f p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld r e ly o n it. See G reer'

s R ef u se Servi ce, In c. v. B ro w n i n g -Ferris In du stri es o f D ela w a re , 84 3 F . 2d 44 3 (11 th C i r. 19 88 ) ( al l ow i ng the di stri ctcourtt o rel y on st at e c ou rt di s c i pl i na ry pr oc e e di ngs i n i m pos i ng s a nc t i ons ) . F i na l l y , w hi l e the puni s hm e nt w a s ha r s h, w e c a nnots a y tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on. T he A m er i ca n B arA ss oci at i on S t andards f or Im po si ng L aw ye r S anct i on s provi de that s us pe ns i on i s appr opr i a t e f oranum be rof

E i c hhol z ’ s a c t i ons , i nc l udi ng hi s pa tt e rn5

of ne gl e c tunde rS t a nda r d 4. 42, hi s l a c k of c om pe t e nc e unde rS t a nda r d 4. 52, a nd hi s vi ol a t i on of

dut i e s ow e d t o the pr of e s s i on unde rS t a nda r d 7. 2. W hi l e the s a n c tio n s in th e G e o r g iaR u le s a r e n o t b in d in g o n th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts , it is n o tab le th a t f o ra ll b u t o n e o f

th e ru le s E ic h h o lz v io la te d th e m a x im u m s a n c tio n is di sbarm ent . A l tho ug h E i chho l z had never been form al l y di sc i pl i ned b y the D i stri ct C our tof S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

G e or gi a , hi s pr i orm i s c onduc tw a s not e d i n pr e vi ous w r i tt e n opi ni ons , a nd hi s c urr e ntpr a c t i c e s how e d ar e pe a tpa tt e rn of di s r e ga r d f

or p r o f e s s io n a l s tan d a r d s . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s w e ll w ith in its d is c r e tio n to i m pos e as us pe ns i on. B ec au se w e c an d isce rn n o re v er sib le er ro r, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s de c i s i on a nd the s a nc t i ons i m pos e d. AF F I RME D.