kanBARoo Court. 50th Installment. Federal Jurisdiction & Issue Preclusion

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases, which gutted the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S. C. § 1983, produced today’s oppressive state bar courts. Attorney discipline is usually administered by administrative bodies acting judicially for their state's highest court, whose conflicting right of ultimate review compromises impartiality. (See Guarino v. Larsen (3rd Cir. 1993) 11 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.4 ["when a court makes a decision concerning the legality of its own actions, it may be too biased to justify abstention by the federal courts even if its actions are considered adjudicative."].) One commentator notes that the state high court may lack the ability to evaluate the administrative agencies it supervises objectively:

Yet, it is precisely because these cases more properly are understood as administrative proceedings (albeit before a judicial tribunal), rather than as true judicial proceedings, that there is legitimate concern about the ability of the states' highest courts to perform their regulatory function and provide appropriate judicial review. In many cases there are allegations of bias or challenges to the disciplinary and admission rules. Although these allegations may prove unfounded, there is sufficient basis for questioning whether a state's highest court can provide the dispassionate resolution that ought to be required when no other judicial review commonly occurs. (Friedman & Gaylord, Rooker-Feldman, From the Ground Up (1999) 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1129, 1132.)

Deciding my case against the State Bar, for example, would scandalize the California Supreme Court’s administrative arm. These unequal contests stretch the definition of adjudication. (See Guarino v. Larsen, supra, 11 F.3d at p. 1159 n.4 [“Adjudication may require a controversy between two parties other than the body making the adjudicative decision.”].)

For review of rights-infringing state cases, litigants have looked to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A United States Supreme Court increasingly hostile to federal judicial oversight blocked the route to federal court for State Bar respondents and similar others when the court ruled that section 1983 suits are subject to the challenged state case’s common-law preclusive effects. (See Allen v. McCurry (1980) 449 U.S. 90.) Missouri had imprisoned McCurry for two years on drug possession charges, based on evidence obtained in an illegal invasion of his house. McCurry sued the officers who participated in the illegal search for conspiracy to violate his civil rights. The Allen v. McCurry court ruled that McCurry’s state conviction collaterally estopped the federal suit for damages, Justices Blackmun, Marshall, and Brennan dissenting. An important precedent had stated, “It is abundantly clear that one reason the legislation was passed was to afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment might be denied by the state agencies.” (Monroe v. Pape (1961) 365 U.S. 167, 183.) The dissenting justices recognized the decision’s break with precedent: "The Court repeatedly has recognized that § 1983 embodies a strong congressional policy in favor of federal courts' acting as the primary and final arbiters of constitutional rights." (Allen v. McCurry, supra, at p. 110.)

Yet, Allen v. McCurry isn’t prominent in interjurisdictional scholarship; the case is overshadowed by District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462, which reproduced Allen v. McCurry’s implications and added a few more. Feldman’s salience confuses litigants challenging the State Bar, as circumventing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine—the new barrier Feldman created—would still leave intact the more fundamental Allen v. McCurry preclusion barrier. One supposed difference between the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and ordinary preclusion, as lawyers sometimes mention, is preclusion’s applicability only where the precluded party had “full and fair opportunity to litigate.” Most federal circuits, however, include this condition in construing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The contrast between ease of dismissal under Rooker-Feldman and the jargon, “full and fair opportunity to litigate,” creates an illusion that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is much harsher than preclusion. But “full and fair opportunity to litigate,” whether applied to preclusion or jurisdiction, means only the chance to raise the federal issues in court. Rooker-Feldman never formally creates a broader bar than preclusion, although the jurisdictional tag subtly influences courts to favor the Rooker-Feldman defendant more than a defendant asserting preclusion as an affirmative defense.

Feldman, itself an attorney discipline case, created the emaciated prototype for the supposed review all California State Bar respondents and their counterparts in most other jurisdictions are entitled to, and Feldman permitted the prototype’s adoption. Although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine only jurisdictionally barred a subset of suits, which would be precluded anyway under Allen v. McCurry, the federal courts used the jurisdictional character of the Rooker-Feldman prohibition to justify uninformative boilerplate language, to which the courts usually confined opinions dismissing these cases. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, more generally, became the primary docket-clearing mechanism in federal district court. Feldman, the cause of the opinionless decisions after In re Rose (2000) 22 Cal.4th 430 was also the paradigm for these opinions’ review minimalism.

kanBARoo Court. 30A Installment. Collateral Estoppel as a Tool of Judicial Bias in the Richard Fine Matter

Although Richard I. Fine’s supposedly corrupt motive for filing motions deemed frivolous formed the crux of the State Bar's case against him, the State Bar Court also made a strained attempt to allege dishonesty, lending a comic aspect to its account. A dispute arose over an apparent Freudian slip by a Superior Court judge in his statement of refusal to disqualify one Commissioner Mitchell, when that Superior Court judge, hearing Fine's motion to disqualify, contradicted himself. The judge wrote that Fine's objections were unfounded and also wrote that Commissioner Mitchell had been "not impartial.” Later, the Superior Court judge announced he had not intended the negation. Judge Honn concluded that Fine had lied to the Court of Appeal about the contents of the Superior Court judge's opinion, when Fine insisted the opinion was actually self-contradictory.

Judge Honn claimed the Superior Court judge had clearly made a “typographical error.” The characterization is curiously inaccurate, and it reveals how Judge Honn wears his bias on his sleeve. This is a most strange "typographical error," a term that "includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but excludes errors of ignorance." (Wikipedia.) If the Superior Court judge successfully maintained his mistake was clerical in nature, he is entitled to correct it sua sponte, but the source of his mistake, if it was a mistake, looks to be his confusing the meaning of "partial" and "impartial," not a clerk typing the wrong alpha-numeric. Small gestures, such as mislabeling one contender's errors, are often key to detecting judicial bias. Although respondent Fine was entitled to a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof, Judge Honn tilted the playing field in the opposite direction, when he used a euphemism for the supposed error.

The Bar Court determined that Fine misrepresented the Superior Court judge’s opinion, treating Fine's disagreement with a judge as though it were dishonesty. No doubt the disagreement was serious, as Fine challenged the judge on characterizing judicial intent. But Fine was entitled to challenge the judge’s characterization, and entitled to treat the document as meaning what it literally said. The State Bar Court's finding by clear and convincing that the judge had made a typographical error expresses genuine absurdity, besides absurd pettiness.

But wait! Did the court even have to evaluate the evidence? In evaluating the typographical error matter, the Bar Court claimed to have conducted an independent evaluation, but in supporting many of its conclusions, the court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to Fine's contempt conviction. A contempt conviction is essentially a criminal matter, and while the applicable standard of proof is more than adequate, other problems should have deterred using the contempt conviction to effect issue preclusion. California courts do apply collateral estoppel liberally, having abrogated the traditional requirement of mutuality, but liberality in the formal requirements must be balanced by greater exercise of judgment. When applying collateral estoppel, California law requires that the courts address whether the specific application of the doctrine serves the interest of justice. (People v. Taylor (1974) 12 Cal.3d 686, 695.) Collateral estoppel based on criminal judgments is controversial in jurisprudence and requires particular scrutiny.

Two considerations should have led the court to decline to collaterally estop Fine: incomplete finality of judgment and differential motive to defend. Collateral estoppel requires finality in the collaterally applied judgment, but criminal judgments necessarily lack a civil judgment’s degree of finality, because they are subject to collateral attack for reasons intrinsic to the case. Reasonably, if you suffer a criminal conviction, it may be reversed, if say, witnesses condemned you by committing perjury, whereas, in a civil case, you must attack the perjury in the case itself. Fine's allegations of de facto bribery of Superior Court Judges amounts to an allegation of intrinsic and extrinsic fraud, which warrants collateral attack, since Fine's conviction is only as strong as his underlying civil case against the County is weak. Since Fine was still contesting the civil action, the contempt conviction lacked the requisite finality. The other implicated criterion, equal incentive to defend, requires that Fine have the same motivation to litigate the contempt conviction as the disbarment. Unlike disbarment, contempt is not inherently ignominious. Disbarment, moreover, is a more serious penalty than spending three days in the local jail. Fine lacked the same motivation to defend the contempt action as the disbarment, and the contempt conviction, consequently, was not probative for his disbarment case.

The court offered no analysis of whether applying collateral estoppel to the contempt conviction served the interest of justice. The court would then have to consider Fine’s contentions. The State Bar Court’s disregard for respondent argument is damning in general but expressly unlawful when the court applies collateral estoppel.