Opinion ID: 787092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Nature of 18-B Panel Certification Decisions

Text: 61 We also conclude that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar review of the Committee's denial of Mitchell's application for recertification because that decision was, in its effect, legislative rather than judicial. Under Feldman, a decision is not judicial in nature unless it is a ruling on an actual controversy over an issue, not ... an abstract declaration, 460 U.S. at 478, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (internal quotation marks omitted), as to a new rule to be applied in the future, see id. at 479, 103 S.Ct. 1303. Although [a] claim of a present right to admission to the bar of a state and a denial of that right is a controversy, id. (internal quotation marks omitted), we do not view an application for certification or recertification to an 18-B Panel as initiating such a controversy. A decision with respect to an applicant's present right to admission to the bar has the immediate effect of granting or denying his right to practice law. Certification to an 18-B Panel has no such effect, either qualitatively or temporally. An attorney may practice law whether or not he is on such a panel; and whether or not he is a member of such a panel, he may be appointed to represent an indigent defendant. Further, as discussed above, being on such a panel does not necessarily mean that the attorney will immediately — or perhaps ever — be appointed to represent an indigent defendant; it means merely that he will be entitled to receive compensation for his services out of public funds if and when he is appointed to represent an indigent defendant. Accordingly, a decision on 18-B Panel certification normally makes no declaration of rights as they stand but only of rights that may arise in the future, and hence is not a decision that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, may properly be characterized as judicial. 62 In the present case, the Committee did not declare that Mitchell was unqualified to act as counsel for indigent defendants; nor did it indicate that there had been any complaint as to his performance or that any question had been raised as to his fitness or competence to act in that capacity. Quite to the contrary, the Committee express[ed its] appreciation to Mitchell for his years of service to the indigent accused, and stated that he was expected to continue to handle to conclusion any assigned cases [he then had]. (Committee Letter to Mitchell.) Thus, in terminating Mitchell's 18-B certification, the Committee merely made a declaration as to his right to receive publicly funded compensation for his services in cases to which he might be assigned in the future. This was not a declaration of any existing right or liability. Indeed, in urging the dismissal of Mitchell's Complaint, the State Defendants argued, inter alia, that Mitchell's request for declaratory relief from the Committee's decision sought merely an advisory opinion[ ] that ... cannot affect the rights of litigants in the [present] case. (May Tr. at 13.) We conclude that the Committee's decision was legislative, not judicial. 63 In sum, we conclude, for the reasons stated in this section and in Part II.A.1. above, that the Committee's decisions implement the legislative resolution that attorneys certified to an 18-B Panel and appointed by the court to represent indigent defendants are to receive compensation, that the Committee's status is that of an administrative body rather than a judicial tribunal, that its certification decisions are not judicial decisions, and, accordingly, that the district court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 64