What standards apply in the federal circuit courts to appeal a finding that a lawyer acted improperly?
One particularly confusing area of ethics practice is the test in federal circuit courts to appeal a “finding” that a lawyer acted improperly. Some circuits—particularly the Seventh Circuit—apply a pretty stringent test before allowing a lawyer to appeal. Other circuits are more liberal. Here’s a quick primer:
First Circuit—allows an appeal where a finding against a lawyer is accompanied by a formal reprimand. In re Williams, 156 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 1998).
Second Circuit—allows an appeal where a formal finding of misconduct is made even if there is no additional punishment. Keach v. County of Schenectady, 593 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2010).
Third Circuit—allows an appeal where attorney behavior was declared sanctionable, even if there were no monetary or disciplinary consequences. Bowers v. NCAA, 475 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2007).
Fourth Circuit—no case on point.
Fifth Circuit—allows an appeal from an order reprimanding an attorney for misconduct despite the lack of a fine or other punishment. Walker v. City of Mesquite, 129 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 1997).
Sixth Circuit—allows an appeal where a specific sanction was imposed or formal charge of misconduct sustained. In re Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 606 F.3d 855 (6th Cir. 2010).
Seventh Circuit—allows an appeal only where a monetary sanction was imposed. Seymour v. Hug, 485 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2007).
Eighth Circuit—no case on point.
Ninth Circuit—allows an appeal where the lower court made a formal finding that a specific rule of ethical conduct was...
