The Washington Constitution provides that “[n]No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Wash. Const. Art. I. § 3. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “no State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1.
Attorneys in disciplinary proceedings have a basic right to procedural due process. In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550 (1968), modified on other grounds, 392 U.S. 919 (1968). Justice Douglas for the majority said:
Disbarment, designed to protect the public, is a punishment or penalty imposed on the lawyer. 71 U. S. 515. He is accordingly entitled to procedural due process, which includes fair notice of the charge. See In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 333 U. S. 273. It was said in 74 U. S. 540, that, when proceedings for disbarment are Selling v. Radford, 243 U. S. 46, 243 U. S. 51.
“not taken for matters occurring in open court, in the presence of the judges, notice should be given to the attorney of the charges made and opportunity afforded him for explanation and defence.”
Therefore, one of the conditions this Court considers in determining whether disbarment by a State should be followed by disbarment here is whether “the state procedure from want of notice or opportunity to be heard was wanting in due process.
See also, D. Reaves, Procedural Due Process Violations in Bar Disciplinary Proceedings, 22 J. Legal Prof. 351 (1998). For more on this comment go to this link.
