Doyle v. Palmer, 18-CV-4439

365 F.Supp.3d 295

Robert DOYLE, Plaintiff,

v.Douglas PALMER, Clerk of the Federal District Court, Eastern District of New York, Defendant.

18-CV-4439

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed March 18, 2019

Plaintiff, Todd C. Bank, Law Office of Todd C. Bank, 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Fl., Kew Gardens, NY 11415, 718-520-7125

Defendant, Matthew J. Modafferi, United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York, 271 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, 718-254-6229

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Jack B. Weinstein, Senior United States District Judge:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction...298

II. Claims...298

III. Background...299

A. Challenged Rule...299

B. Factual Allegations...300

IV. Motion to Dismiss Standard...301

V. Analysis...301

A. Survey of Federal Courts' Local Rules...302

B. Constitutional Delegation of Power by Congress to the Judiciary...303

C. Fifth Amendment Claims...304

D. First Amendment Claims...305

VI. Conclusion...305

A. Proposal to Revise Local Rule 1.3(a)...305

B. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss...305

VII. Exhibit A: Survey of Federal Court Local Rules—Requirements for Attorneys to Sponsor Applicant's Admission to the Bar...305

I. Introduction

This case arises out of a challenge to Local Rule 1.3(a) of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York's "sponsor affidavit requirement." Applicants to the bar of the Eastern District of New York must submit an affidavit from a current member of the bar, who has known the applicant for a minimum of one year , stating what the attorney knows of the applicant's character and experience.

Plaintiff Robert Doyle brings this action against the Clerk of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He seeks both a declaration that the sponsor affidavit requirement is unconstitutional and a writ of mandamus to allow plaintiff to apply for admission to the Eastern District of the New York bar without complying with the sponsor affidavit requirement.

Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted.

II. Claims

First , plaintiff challenges the foundation of the federal courts' authority to adopt rules governing the admission of attorneys by arguing that Local Rule 1.3(a)'s sponsor affidavit requirement is the result of an unconstitutional delegation of power by Congress to the Judiciary. Second , he claims that the sponsor affidavit requirement contravenes the Fifth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Third, he alleges that it violates his rights under the First Amendment.

None of these claims have merit.

"[A] district court has discretion to adopt local rules that are necessary to carry out the conduct of its business. This authority includes the regulation of admissions to its own bar." Frazier v. Heebe , 482 U.S. 641, 645, 107 S.Ct. 2607, 96 L.Ed.2d 557 (1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1654 ; 28 U.S.C. § 2071 ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1) ("After giving public notice and an opportunity for comment, a district court, acting by a majority of its district judges, may adopt and amend rules governing its practice."); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (the scope of the federal court's inherent power includes "the power to control admission to its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it" (citation omitted) ).

"The practice of law is not a matter of grace, but of right for one who is qualified by his learning and his moral character." Baird v. State Bar of Arizona , 401 U.S. 1, 8, 91 S.Ct. 702, 27 L.Ed.2d 639 (1971) (citations omitted). The sponsor affidavit requirement is a valid exercise of the Eastern District of New York's judiciary's authority to adopt local rules related to an applicant's fitness to practice law. See In re Sutter, 543 F.2d 1030, 1037 (2d Cir. 1976) ("Whether grounded upon the inherent power of the court or upon the rule-making power conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 2071, the operative principle is the same: if the local rule is related to the management of the court's business and it is not inconsistent with a statute or other rule or the Constitution, then it is valid."); Ex parte Secombe , 60 U.S. 9, 13, 19 How. 9, 15 L.Ed. 565 (1856) ("[I]t rests exclusively with the court to determine who is qualified to become one of its officers ...."). The court reasonably depends upon a lawyer's veracity and good faith and is therefore entitled to investigate the character of those who seek to practice before it.

Relevant is a review of the local rules for the United States courts. See, infra , Section V(A); Exhibit A (table summarizing court's survey of federal courts' rules). It demonstrated that admission requirements similar to the sponsor affidavit requirement of the Eastern District have been widely adopted by federal courts. See Ex. A (finding that 47 of 94 district courts require a sponsoring attorney to state what she or he knows of the applicant's character and/or experience at the bar; 6 require the sponsoring attorney know the applicant for at least one year). In Exhibit A, attached, those courts requiring the sponsoring attorney know the applicant for at least a fixed amount of time are marked with an asterisk.

The court reviewed the admission materials for each federal court. But, the application forms for several district courts—Western District of Arkansas, Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Colorado, Northern District of Florida, Southern District of Florida, District of Kansas, District of Massachusetts, District of Nebraska, District of North Dakota, Western District of Wisconsin—were not readily accessible.

There is no legal basis for the elimination of the sponsor affidavit requirement, but it may, in some few instances, make it more difficult to gain admission. For this reason, the requirement that the sponsoring attorney know the applicant for a year should probably be eliminated. Most courts do not require the sponsor to have known the applicant for any amount of time prior to commenting on their character and experience.

III. Background

A. Challenged Rule

Local Rule 1.3(a) sets out the requirements for admission to the bar of the Eastern District of New York. It provides, in relevant part:

"[An] application for [bar] admission ... shall ... be accompanied by an affidavit of an attorney of this Court who has known the applicant for at least one year , stating when the affiant was admitted to practice in this court, how long and under what circumstances the attorney has known the applicant, and what the attorney knows of the applicant's character and experience at the bar ."

(emphasis added).

The form affidavit that sponsoring attorneys are asked to fill out is simple, to the point, and should present no difficulty to an applicant. It is set out below:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
  _________________________________________X
  IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
SPONSORING AFFIDAVIT
  _________________________________________X
  TO BE ADMITTED AS AN ATTORNEY
  _________________________________________X
  ____________________________________________, being duly sworn, deposes and says
     FIRST, I reside at ______________________________________________
  and maintain offices and official address the practice of law at __________________________
  ___________________________________________________________________________________________
     SECOND, I am an attorney at law, having been admitted to practice in the Supreme
  Court, Appellate Division of the _______ Department of New York during the _________________
  Term, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in good
  standing
     THIRD, I have known the Petitioner for at least one year and have visited with him/her
  on numerous occasions
     FOURTH, I know that the Petitioner has practiced law in the court of ____________________
  ______________, that Petitioner is of good moral character and fully qualified to be
  admitted to practice in this Court.
     FIFTH, I know that the Petitioner has been attorney in actions on _______________________
  ____________________________________________________________________________________________.
     SIXTH, In my opinion Petitioner believes in the fundamental principles of the
  Constitution of the United States and will make an honorable and capable member of the bar of
  this Court.
                                                                   ____________________________
                                                                   Sponsor's Signature
  Sworn to before me this
  ___________day of
  ________________, ________                                       ____________________________
                                                                   Signature of Notary Public

B. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff is an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York. See Hr'g Tr. 11:1–5, Feb. 19, 2019. He allegedly wishes to become a member of the bar in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Am. Compl. ¶ 23. But, he contends he cannot comply with the sponsor affidavit requirement without compromising his beliefs or his self-identity. See id. ¶¶ 23, 29, 33.

To enable a current member of the bar to provide a reasonably accurate assessment of his character, Doyle alleges that he must engage in certain "necessary activities." Id. ¶ 24. They include the "disclosure, to a [s]ponsor, of [his] beliefs regarding philosophical, religious, political, social, moral, and ethical matters ... [and] of a sufficient number of experiences of [his] that demonstrate consistency, or inconsistency, with any of [his] [p]ersonal [b]eliefs." Id. ¶¶ 25–26. He contends that it "would be virtually impossible for [him] to engage in the [n...