Court Opinion

ID: 9908227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:01:54.532404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:00.803253
License: Public Domain

Rel: December 8, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

         SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
                             OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

                                _________________________

                                      SC-2023-0507
                                _________________________

                                  Gatewood A. Walden

                                                  v.

            The Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar

                   Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
                                (CV-23-70)

SELLERS, Justice.

       Gatewood A. Walden, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment

of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing his action against the
SC-2023-0507

Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar ("the Disciplinary Board").

We affirm.

                       I. Facts and Procedural History

     Walden was admitted to the Alabama State Bar in 1966. In June

2012, the Disciplinary Board found Walden guilty of charges brought

against him and issued an order disbarring him from the practice of law

in this State. This Court affirmed the order entered by the Disciplinary

Board, without an opinion. See Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n, (No.

1111313, Dec. 14, 2012) 156 So. 3d 999 (Ala. 2012) (table). This Court

subsequently overruled Walden's application for a rehearing, and the

certificate of judgment issued on February 22, 2013. See Walden v.

Alabama State Bar Ass'n, (No. 1111313, Feb. 22, 2013) 162 So. 3d 948

(Ala. 2013) (table). After his disbarment, Walden initiated proceedings

in both state and federal courts challenging the Disciplinary Board's

findings related to his disbarment. 1 Most recently, Walden commenced

     1 See, e.g.: this Court's order of dismissal in Ex parte Walden (No.
1120906, June 5, 2013) (dismissing petition to "withdraw the decision
affirming the order of disbarment of Gatewood A. Walden"); this Court's
order of dismissal in Ex parte Walden (No. 1130394, May 29, 2014)
(dismissing both petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Alabama
State Bar Association and petition for reinstatement); the Montgomery
Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n
                                      2
SC-2023-0507

an action in the Montgomery Circuit Court requesting that the circuit

court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Disciplinary Board to

vacate its disbarment order on the basis that the order was void. Walden

also claimed that, because the disbarment order was void, this Court's

decision affirming that order was also void. The Disciplinary Board filed

a motion to dismiss Walden's action, arguing, in relevant part, that the

circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter. The

circuit court entered a judgment, dismissing the action. Walden filed a

et al. (No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX, Sept. 17, 2018) (dismissing an action against
the Alabama State Bar Association and certain Bar officials for lack of
jurisdiction), aff'd, Walden v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n, 320 So. 3d 545
(Ala. 2020); the Montgomery Circuit Court's order of dismissal in Walden
v. Alabama State Bar Ass'n et al. (No. CV-21-900727, Aug. 4, 2021)
(dismissing action against the Alabama State Bar Association and other
defendant for lack of jurisdiction and further ordering that Walden was
"barred from filing any future pleading, petition or complaint premised
on his disbarment"); the Lowndes Circuit Court's order of dismissal in
Walden v. Disciplinary Bd. of Alabama State Bar (No. CV-22-000007,
Sept. 7, 2022) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus directed to the
Disciplinary Board); and the Montgomery Circuit Court's order of
dismissal in Walden v. Disciplinary Bd. of Alabama State Bar (No. CV-
23-000070, May 8, 2023) (dismissing action against the Disciplinary
Board). Walden also filed a "Petition for Reinstatement" in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. That
proceeding culminated in Walden's disbarment from the practice of law
in that court. See In re Walden, 709 F. App'x 644 (11th Cir. 2017).

                                   3
SC-2023-0507

motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which was denied. This

appeal followed.

                         II. Standard of Review

     This Court reviews de novo the issue whether the circuit court

lacked jurisdiction in this case. State Dep't of Revenue v. Arnold, 909 So.

2d 192 (Ala. 2005).

                             III. Discussion

                                A. Merits

     Walden argues, without citation to any legal authority, that the

circuit court erred in dismissing his action against the Disciplinary Board

because, he says, "[u]nder Alabama law, the Montgomery Circuit Court

has supervisory jurisdiction over the Disciplinary Board of the State

Bar." Walden's brief at 10 (emphasis in original). However, Walden

entirely ignores this Court's holding in Walden v. Alabama State Bar

Ass'n, 320 So. 3d 545 (Ala. 2020). In that case, Walden challenged a

judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing his action against,

among others, the Disciplinary Board. In his complaint, Walden had

requested, in relevant part, that the circuit court enter a judgment (1)

declaring that the revocation of his law license was void and (2) directing

                                    4
SC-2023-0507

the Alabama State Bar reinstate him as a member of the Bar in good

standing. The circuit court entered a judgment dismissing the action,

explaining that the court did not " 'have the jurisdiction to review nor the

ability to grant the relief [Walden] is requesting.' " 320 So. 3d at 548. In

affirming that judgment, this Court made it abundantly clear that the

circuit courts of this State have no jurisdiction over orders entered in Bar

disciplinary proceedings:

           "The trial court correctly concluded that it did not have
     the power to grant Walden the relief he seeks. As detailed
     above, while Walden's disciplinary proceeding was pending in
     2011, he initiated an action in the Montgomery Circuit Court
     asking the court to insert itself into the disciplinary
     proceeding and to dissolve his interim suspension. The trial
     court declined to do so and dismissed his action, explaining to
     Walden in a reasoned order that matters involving the
     discipline of members of the State Bar were within the
     exclusive jurisdiction of the State Bar 'with review by the
     Supreme Court of Alabama.' Rule 1(a)(1), Ala. R. Disc. P. This
     governing principle has not changed since then; to the
     contrary, it has only been reinforced. See, e.g., Nichols v.
     Alabama State Bar, 815 F.3d 726, 732 (11th Cir. 2016)
     (recognizing that 'Alabama law delegates to the State Bar,
     with supervision by the Supreme Court of Alabama, the power
     to investigate and discipline attorney misconduct').

           "Simply put, circuit courts in this State have no
     authority to reverse a judgment made by the State Bar in a
     disciplinary proceeding, to admit an attorney to the State Bar,
     or to direct the State Bar to reinstate an attorney who has
     previously been disbarred. A party like Walden who is
     aggrieved by an adverse decision of the State Bar has the
                                     5
SC-2023-0507

     right under Rule 12(f), Ala. R. Disc. P., to seek appellate
     review of that decision -- from this Court -- not from a circuit
     court. Walden, in fact, availed himself of Rule 12(f) when he
     appealed his order of disbarment to this Court, which
     affirmed the State Bar's decision. The trial court has no
     jurisdiction to review that order of disbarment again, and it
     therefore properly dismissed Walden's complaint to the extent
     that complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief
     regarding the status of his membership in the State Bar."

Id. at 548. (some emphasis added).

     Our holding in Walden, 320 So. 3d 545, was, and is, distinct, precise,

and unambiguous, providing no possibility that a circuit court could ever

have jurisdiction to entertain an action seeking a writ of mandamus

directing the Disciplinary Board to vacate an order disbarring an

attorney from the practice of law. Accordingly, the circuit court in this

case did not err in dismissing Walden's action. " 'Lacking subject-matter

jurisdiction [a court] may take no action other than to exercise its power

to dismiss the action. ... Any other action ... is null and void.' " State v.

Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1029 (Ala. 1999)

(quoting Beach v. Director of Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Mo. Ct. App.

1996)).

                               B. Sanctions

                                     6
SC-2023-0507

     Despite the finality of the order disbarring Walden from the

practice of law, this Court's holding in Walden, 320 So. 3d 545, and the

holding of this opinion, this Court has little doubt that Walden will

continue to file unwarranted challenges to his disbarment, thus abusing

this Court's limited resources. 2 We therefore conclude that a sanction is

merited. This Court has the inherent power to protect against repetitious

and frivolous filings that result in an abuse of the judicial process. As

the United States Supreme Court has noted, "[e]very paper filed with the

Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some

portion of the institution's limited resources. A part of the Court's

responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that

promotes the interests of justice." In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184

(1989). See also Peterson v. State, 817 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 2002) ("This

Court has a responsibility to ensure every citizen's right of access to the

courts. … A limitation on [the petitioner's] ability to file would further

the constitutional right to access for other litigants because it would

permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of

     2At this juncture, Walden's sole recourse is to seek reinstatement

pursuant to Rule 28 of the Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
                                  7
SC-2023-0507

legitimate claims filed by others."). In order to promote the interests of

justice, Walden is precluded from proceeding pro se in this Court in any

matters relating to his disbarment; any future filings in this Court

challenging Walden's disbarment must be signed by a member in good

standing of the Alabama State Bar. Under the sanction imposed, Walden

is not being completely denied access to this Court. Rather, he may have

access to the Court through the assistance of counsel, if such counsel

determines that a proceeding relating to Walden's disbarment may have

merit and can be pursued in good faith.

                             IV. Conclusion

     We affirm the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Walden's

action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of this Court is

hereby instructed to reject future filings that in any way relate to

Walden's disbarment, unless signed by a member in good standing of the

Alabama State Bar.

     AFFIRMED.

     Parker, C.J., and Wise, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.

                                    8