due-process-clause

QUESTION PRESENTED In February of 2016, Petitioner Spencer Freeman Smith, a civil rights and whistleblower attorney, was suspended without a hearing by the State Bar of California pursuant to California’s Business and Professions Code Section 6102. Petitioner was not given a post-suspension hearing until September of 2020. Business and Professions Code Section 6102 did not ensure a prompt hearing or resolution of issues, and after the hearing, the State Bar took an additional three years to make its final decision on discipline. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his prolonged four-year pre-hearing suspension, the State Bar’s subsequent three-year delay in rendering its final decision, the State’ Bar’s use of ex parte hearsay statements to support its final discipline ruling, and the State Bar’s failure to provide notice of the facts and circumstances supporting the State Bar’s theory of discipline prior to Petitioner’s postsuspension hearing. The questions presented are: ‘ I. Whether it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for the State Bar of California to place an attorney on suspension without a hearing for four years before conducting a post-suspension hearing. Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979)? . Til. Whether it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for the State Bar of California to publicly recommend an attorney be disbarred and then wait three years to submit its final recommendation for discipline. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 549 (1985)? @) II]. Whether it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for the State Bar of California, to base its disbarment recommendation upon the ex parte statements of witnesses whom the accused attorney had not been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine. Willner v. Committee on Character, 373 U.S. 96, 103 (1963); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269, (1970)? IV. Did the State Bar fail to provide Petitioner with adequate notice of the facts and circumstances supporting disbarment? In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968). (i)