In re Barach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Admittedly, the Due Process Clause applies to disciplinary proceedings. But the Due Process Clause does not demand that a state devise an ideal set of procedures for attorney discipline. It suffices to-satisfy due process if a state adopts procedures that collectively ensure the fundamental fairness of the disciplinary proceedings. In other words, the Due Process Clause imposes a floor below which a state cannot descend, not a level of perfection that a'state must achieve. Wé understand the importance of a lawyer’s right to practice law and agree that, once granted, that right cannot be taken away in an arbitrary or capricious manner. ■ ;Yet the Due Process Clause is flexible, and reasonablé minds can differ as to the need for elevated levels of proof in particular situations. Viewed in this light, the use of a preponderance of the evidence standard in bar disciplinary proceedings does not offend due process. After all, many types of important property rights typically'rest, in contested proceedings, on proof by preponderant evidence. Moreover, other jurisdictions besides Massachusetts use a preponderance standard in'attorney disciplinary matters. Although - there is something to be said on policy grounds for requiring a more sturdy quantum of proof, the use of a preponderance standard is not so arbitrary or irrational as to render state disciplinary proceedings that use it fundamentally unfair.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re: Hayes v. · Paul J. Walwyn v. Board of Professional Responsibility Of The Supreme Court of Tennessee

2. “1. that the procedure used by the other court was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or 2. that there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that this Court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or 3. that the imposition of substantially similar discipline by this Court would result in grave injustice; or 4. that the misconduct established is deemed by the Court to warrant different discipline.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Suárez-Jiménez

3. “[wjhere ... action against an attorney is based on the imposition of discipline by a state court, the ultimate decision of the state court as to the type and kind of discipline meted out is “not conclusively binding” on this court. Nevertheless, this court is without jurisdiction, in a federal disciplinary proceeding, to disturb the state court’s imposition of discipline, and the state court’s substantive findings ordinarily are entitled to a high degree of respect when this court is asked to impose reciprocal discipline.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Oliveras López de Victoria