Unsweet Home Alabama
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals will hear oral argument in a reciprocal discipline case next Thursday involving an Alabama disbarment
Thursday, April 9, 2015 9:30 AM
Associate Judges Fisher and Easterly; Senior Judge Ruiz
No. 14-BG-0005
IN RE: SHERRYL V.R.S. GOFFER AKA SHERRYL SNODGRASS CAFFEY BAR REGISTRATION NO. 405100
My analysis of the case from a June 2014 post
The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR) has recommended that an attorney who was disbarred in Alabama be suspended for 90 days with fitness as reciprocal discipline.
The case is a very hard one given a host of factors. It is complicated by the precedents relating to an attorney’s failure to participate in reciprocal discipline proceedings.
The attorney was admitted in D.C. in 1986 and had no prior discipline in either Alabama or D.C.
The disbarment involved her conduct during a single state court criminal trial.
The Alabama order (which I have been unable to find on line) quotes from the transcript extensively. The attorney may well have crossed the often difficult to discern line from zealousness to argumentative, but no more so than I have frequently seen in hotly-contested criminal and civil trials.
The trial court found the attorney in contempt and declared a mistrial.
After the trial, the attorney made a comment to a television station “that there was an intolerance by white judges to show respect to black attorneys and that the judge was embarrassed by all the lies the State told during the trial.”
The prosecutor filed the bar complaint.
After the Alabama disbarment, the attorney sued a host of defendants including the Alabama Supreme Court.
The suit was dismissed on immunity grounds.
The Alabama State Bar Disciplinary Board found that the attorney’s accusation against the judge violated Rule 8.2. D.C.did not adopt that rule.
Further, the Alabama Board found that the attorney had a “dishonest and selfish motive” in the misconduct. To me, that finding is nonsense.
This order of the Alabama Supreme Court provides some procedural details.
The reciprocal matter is complicated by two facts: the attorney defaulted and has been suspended for non-payment of D.C. bar dues since 1987.
When an attorney defaults in a reciprocal matter, the court has held (in case I argued) that the Board’s review should be a cursory one “to prevent an obvious miscarriage of justice.”
Here, Respondent did not object to the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline-indeed, he took no part in the proceedings.
Given this posture, we think the role of the Board should be a limited one. The most the Board should consider itself obliged to do in cases where neither Bar Counsel nor the attorney opposes imposition of identical discipline is to review the foreign proceeding sufficiently to satisfy itself that no obvious miscarriage of justice would result in the imposition of identical discipline-a situation that we anticipate would rarely, if ever, present itself.
The D.C. Court of Appeals imposes summary reciprocal discipline unless someone objects. Here, the court took the unusual step of seeking the Board’s views absent any objection.
The Board made the miscarriage of justice finding. Two Board members dissented. The dissent makes some excellent points: the attorney has not paid D.C. bar dues for over 25 years “evincing no interest in remaining a member of this bar” and had not advised D.C.of the Alabama sanction.
The Board is clearly correct (did I write that?) in concluding that contumacious conduct in a single trial would not result in severe discipline in an original matter. I also agree that disbarment as reciprocal discipline is so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock one’s conscience.
While the default is troubling, disbarment in this case is more so.
The Board recommendation may be found at this link by entering the name Sherryl Goffer. The Alabama order was under the name Sherryl Caffey.
Also, as a blogger who surfs state court and bar web pages for disciplinary orders, I would rank Alabama as the very worst jurisdiction in terms of online transparency. Lack of transparency (which is not limited to Alabama) makes me wary of any disciplinary regime. If anyone knows how to find Alabama disciplinary orders on line, please educate me.
District of Columbia Bar Counsel supports disbarment.
As an assistant bar counsel, I argued many times in opposition to a downward departure from identical discipline recommendation by the BPR. My position was premised in the idea that the Board often inappropriately either minimized the misconduct found or second-guessed the disciplining tribunal’s sanction.
Here, the Alabama proceedings just give me pause that I rarely, if ever, have felt in a reciprocal matter.
I predict that the Court of Appeals will not impose such a harsh sanction. Stay tuned.
I predict that it will be a very unpleasant experience for the Assistant Bar Counsel who argues this case.
See you there, I hope. (Mike Frisch)