Edwin F. Lark v. Vernon E. West, Chairman, Committee on Admissions and Grievances
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of GLS (District Court, D. Maryland 1984)
- In re Wright (Wash. 1984)
- The Washington Post Company v. Eugene J. Keogh (D.C. Cir. 1966)
- Gonzales v. North Tp. of Lake County (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1992)
- Teltron, Inc. v. Alexander (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1990)
- In The Matter Of Judith Ward Smith (10th Cir. 1985)
- Mattox v. Disciplinary Panel of United States District Court (10th Cir. 1985)
- The Standing Committee on Discipline of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California v. John M. Ross (9th Cir. 1984)
- Brown v. McGarr (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1984)
- Galahad v. Weinshienk (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1983)
- In re Michael Rappaport (2d Cir. 1977)
- Bremier v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1972)
- Royal Indemnity Company v. The United States and Jersey State Bank, Third-Party (3d Cir. 1967)
- Feldman v. Birger (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1962)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appellant, a member of the bar of West Virginia, sought admission to the bar of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Committee on Admissions and Grievances of that court, after affording appellant a full hearing at which he testified, and after conducting its own investigation, denied appellant admission to the bar. The Committee’s action was based on the fact that while a member of the bar of West Virginia, appellant had been convicted for mail fraud arising out of his activities as an officer of a fraternal insurance organization. Appellant served seven years of a twelve year sentence after which he received a limited pardon which operated only to restore his civil rights. The Committee’s report recited that appellant had been the principal defendant in the mail fraud case and that he received the most severe sentence of all those charged in the conspiracy. After full consideration of appellant’s evidence, including his conduct since release, the Committee unanimously voted against recommending his admission.
The Committee quite properly refused to retry the merits of appellant’s original conviction. The facts recited amply support the action of the Committee and of the District Court in denying appellant’s petition for admission to engage in the practice of law in this jurisdiction. Cf. Carver v. Clephane, 1943, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 91, 137 F.2d 685. The order of the District Court granting summary judgment for the defendants is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.