IN RE: JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-21No. No. 21-55462

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order disbarring Thomas, finding no abuse of discretion because Thomas did not satisfy his burden to show due process deprivation, insufficient proof of misconduct, or grave injustice warranting an exception to reciprocal discipline.

Jeffrey Gray Thomas, a licensed attorney, challenged a federal district court order that imposed reciprocal discipline—specifically disbarment in the Central District of California—following his involuntary inactive enrollment by the State Bar of California. Thomas appealed pro se, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in imposing this reciprocal discipline. The appellate court reviewed the case for abuse of discretion and found none, concluding that Thomas failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a due process violation, insufficient evidence of misconduct, or circumstances that would result in grave injustice if the reciprocal discipline were imposed.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether reciprocal discipline was imposed without abuse of discretion
Whether attorney met burden to avoid reciprocal discipline
Grounds for avoiding federal reciprocal discipline: due process, insufficient evidence, or grave injustice

Procedural posture

Thomas appealed pro se from a district court order imposing reciprocal disbarment discipline in the Central District of California following his involuntary inactive enrollment by the State Bar of California.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jeffrey Gray Thomas, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district courts order imposing reciprocal discipline following his involuntary inactive enrollment by the State Bar of California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, in re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in disbarring Thomas in the Central District of California because Thomas did not meet his burden to show that he was deprived of due process, that proof of misconduct was insufficient, or that grave injustice would result from the imposition of reciprocal discipline. See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the limited circumstances in which an attorney can avoid a federal courts imposition of reciprocal discipline and setting forth attorneys burden of proof).

Thomas’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 6) and motion to file a late brief (Docket Entry No. 7) are granted. The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted on August 7, 2021 (Docket Entry No. 4).

AFFIRMED.