Court Opinion

ID: 995358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:36:15.330625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:13.870909
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In the Case of: EARNESTINE BROWN,
                                                                         No. 96-2124
Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(MISC-95-61)

Submitted: April 28, 1998

Decided: June 23, 1998

Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Earnestine Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Earnestine Brown appeals an order of the District Court of Mary-
land disbarring her from practice before the court. She seeks to raise
four issues before this court. Brown was aware that the district court's
disciplinary committee had appointed counsel to investigate certain
matters involving Brown and make a recommendation to the commit-
tee, in accordance with U.S. Dist. Ct. of Md. R. 705.1. Brown
received a copy of counsel's report, recommending that the court ini-
tiate formal disciplinary proceedings and issue an order requiring
Brown to show cause why she should not be disciplined. Pursuant to
authorization by a district judge, counsel contacted Brown concerning
the possibility of her disbarment by consent, in accordance with U.S.
Dist. Ct. of Md. R. 705.1(f). Although Brown called counsel when
she received the notice at her home address, she did not follow up on
the possibility.

The district court issued a show cause order, warning Brown that
failure to timely respond raising an issue of fact or asserting a desire
to be heard in mitigation could result in action, including disbarment,
without further proceedings. The order was returned as undeliverable.
The disciplinary committee adopted counsel's report, and the full
court voted to disbar Brown. She appeals, seeking to raise four issues.

A district court has inherent authority to suspend or disbar lawyers
from practicing before it. In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 643 (1985). An
appellate court owes "substantial deference to the district court" in
reviewing such a decision. In re Evans, 801 F.2d 703, 706 (4th Cir.
1986). An attorney facing discipline is entitled to procedural due pro-
cess consisting of notice and an opportunity to be heard, In re
Cordova-Gonzalez, 996 F.2d 1334, 1336 (1st Cir. 1993), but a hear-
ing is not absolutely required. In re Evans, 834 F.2d 90, 91 (4th Cir.
1987). Brown was aware of the proceedings against her, and the show
cause order was sent to the address she provided to the court. She
received mail at this address both before and after attempted delivery
of the show cause order. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
satisfied the requirements of procedural due process. Having foregone
her opportunity to seek a hearing in the district court, Brown may not
raise other issues in this court. She may seek reinstatement in that
court in accordance with U.S. Dist. Ct. of Md. R. 705.4.

We affirm the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-

                    2
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3