1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2361
I n Re : FRAN K J . M AR CO NE, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 2- 08- m c- 00164 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le H arv eyB artl e, II I Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 11, 2010 B e f o re : A M B R O , S M IT H , a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember23, 2010 ) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. B yo rde r da ted A p ri l 30 , 2 0 0 9 , the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia su sp en d ed F ran k J. M arc o n e f rom the p rac ti ce o f law in it s co u rt fora per i od of tw o y ear s . M ar cone f i l ed an a ppeal of thator deron M ay6, 2009, r ai s i ngMarc one also identifies a s a third issue whether the District Court had subjec t matter 1 jurisdic tio n. Th is a

rgument l a c ks me ri t a s a

dis tric t c ourt

“ ha s th einh e rent a

uth ority . . . to discipline attorneys who appe ar be foreit.” In re Surrick, 338 F.3d 224, 229 ( 3d Cir. 2003). Appellate jurisdiction ex ists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Id. Be causeMarc one’s f irst two arguments raise issues of

law, our review is plena

ry . Id. 2 tw o a rg u m e n ts f

o r re v e rsa l. 1 P r i o rt o M a r c o n e ’ s s u s p e n s i o n b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , th e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C o u rt h a d su sp e n d e d h im f ro m th e p ra c tice o f

law . D u rin g th is p e rio d o f su sp e n sio n , in
e a rly2 0 0 6 , M a rc o n e p ro v id e d leg a l se rv ice s to a re a l es tate b ro k e r re g a rd in g a re a l es tate tr ans act i on t hatfel l apart . T hes e s ervi ces i ncl uded the pr epar at i on of a r el eas e r egar di ng th e e sc ro w , an d a c o n f

e re n c e w ith a n d lette r to th e b u y e r’s c o u n se l. T h e se e f f o rts to
r es ol ve the di s put e r egar di ng t he r eturn of the es cr ow w er e notpr oduct i ve, and the buy er of the r eal es t at e i ni t i at ed a c i vi l act i on i n t he l att erpartof 2006 aga i ns tthe br okeri n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a. Subse quent l y , i n Sept emberof 2007, the ci vi l act i on w as t r ans ferr ed t o t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, w hi ch w as the s itu s o f th e re al estate. A t th is po int, in li g h t of the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt ’s
s us pens i on of M ar cone’ s l i cens e t o pr act i ce l aw , the M agi s t r at e J udge pr es i di ng overt he
cas e ques t i oned the pr opr i etyof M ar cone’ s r epr es ent at i on of the br okerpr i ort o t he i ni t i at i on of l i t i gat i on and bef or e the ac t i on w as tr ans ferr ed t o t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. M ar cone c l ai m ed thathe w as ent i t l ed t o r enderl egal s ervi ces t o t he br oker beca us e he ha d a “f

eder al l i cens e” byvi r tue of hi s admi s s i on t o pr act i ce l aw i n t he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notdi s put e thatM ar cone ha d b e e n a d m itt e d to p ra c tice in th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d w a s e n tit led to3

pr ovi de l egal s ervi ces t o cl i ent s i nvol ved i n l i t i gat i on i n t hatcour t . T he C our tconcl uded, how ever , t hatM ar cone’ s l i cens e t o pr act i ce l aw befor e the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di d notauthor i ze hi m t o r enderl egal s ervi ces t o cl i ent s w ho ar e nei t her part i es t o an ac t i on i n t he East ern D i s t r i ctnori nt endi ng t o pr os ecut e an a ct i on i n t hat
cour t . A s a r es ul t , t he C our tdeci ded thatM ar cone ha d engage d i n t he unauthor i zed pr act i ce of

l aw , det erm i ned thatdi s ci pl i ne w as w arr ant ed, and s us pended M ar cone f r om the pr act i ce of

l aw befor e i tfora tw o y earper i od. R el y i ng on Sper r

y v. Stat e of

F l or i da , 373 U . S. 379 ( 1963) , M ar cone c ont ends t hat the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bec aus e hi s “fe der al l i cens e” t o pr act i ce i n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia p ro v id e d h im w ith a “ sa f e p a ss ” to p ra c tice law e v e n th o u g h h is Penns y l vani a l i cens e had be en s us pended. I n Sp erry , the Supr eme C our tdet erm i ned that the Supr emacyC l aus e pr ecl uded the St at e of Fl or i da fr om enj oi ni ng a nonl aw y er , w ho
w a s re g iste re d to p ra c tice b e f o re th e U n ited S tate s P a ten t O f f ice , fr o m e n g a g in g in c e rta in act i vi t i es as s oci at ed w i t h pat entl aw . 373 U . S. at385. T he Supr eme C our tvaca t ed Fl or i da’ s i nj unct i on i ns ofaras i t“pr ohi bi t [ed] [the r egi s t er ed pr act i t i oner ] fr om per form i ng t as ks w hi ch ar e i nci dentt o t he pr epar at i on and pr os ecut i on of pat ent appl i cat i ons befor e the Pat entO ffi ce. ” I d. a t 4 0 4 . I n Sur r i ck v
. K i l l i on , 4 4 9 F .3 d 5 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), w e o b se rv e d th a t Sp erry “s t ands fort he gene r al pr opos i t i on t hatw her e fe der al l aw author i zes an age ntt o pr act i ce be for e a fede r al t r i bunal , t he fe der al l aw pr eempt s a s t at e’ s l i cens i ng r equi r ement s t o t he ext ent thatthos e r equi r ement s hi nderorobs t ructthe goal s of fe der al l aw . ” I d. at530. H er e, t he4

fede r al l aw author i zed M ar cone t o pr act i ce l aw onl ybefor e the D i s t r i ctC our tforthe E astern D istri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia. Y et M arc o n e re li ed o n h is ad m issi o n to the E astern D i s tr i ctbart o pr ovi de l egal s ervi ces i n a mat t erthathad no conne ct i on w i t h l i t i gat i on e ith e r p e n d in g in th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o r i n te n d e d to b e p ro s e c u te d b e f o re th a t C o u rt . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n appl y i ng Sp erry a n d in det erm i ni ng t hatM ar cone e ngaged i n t he unauthor i zed pr act i ce of l aw w hen he r ender ed th e le g a l s e rv ic e s to th e re a l e s ta te b ro k e r. M ar cone a l s o cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s i n s ever al r es pect s . Fi r s t , he as s ert s thathi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s w as vi ol at ed b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt p a n e l th a t re c o m m e n d e d h is s u sp e n sio n m e rg e d its i nves t i gat i ve and j udi ci al funct i ons . A s s uppor tforhi s cont ent i on, M ar cone r el i es on Lynes s v. Stat e Board of Medi ci ne , 6 0 5 A .2 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 1 0 (P a . 1 9 9 2 ). L yness i s nothel pful
as i taddr es s es due pr oces s undert he Penns y l vani a C ons t i tut i on. U nderthe fe der al C ons t i tut i on, how ever , t he “c om bi nat i on of i nves t i gat i ve and a dj udi cat i ve func t i ons does not , w i thoutm or e, cons t i tut e a due pr oces s vi ol at i on[. ] ” W ith ro w v . L a rk in , 421 U . S. 35, 5 8 (1 9 7 5 ). H e re , M a rc o n e h a s f a ile d to a d d u c e a n ye v id e n c e o f a d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n . I d. Second, M ar cone c om pl ai ns t hathe w as notaff or ded an opportuni t yt o be hea r d. T he
r ecor d befor e us confi r m s , how ever , thatther e w as a hea r i ng i n t hi s m at t eron D ece m ber 28, 2008. T hi r d, M ar cone s ubm i t s thathe w as depr i ved of a fai rand unbi as ed hea r i ng b ec au se Ju d g e P ad o v a d id n o t r ec u se h im self. Y et M arc o n e’s req u est fo r Jud g e P ad o v a’s
rec u sal w as w ith d raw n b yco u n sel at th e D ec em b er 2 8 th h ea ri n g . M o reo v er, w e d iscern5

n o b asis fo r recu sal o n this reco rd. In li g h t of the f o reg o ing , w e c o n clud e tha t M arc o n e’s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e notvi ol at ed. W e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdat ed A pr i l 30, 2009.