Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Re Discipline of James A. Ashton, A Member of The Bar of The United States District Court For The Western District of Pennsylvania. Appeal of James A. Ashton, 769 F.2d 168, 3rd Cir. (1985)
In Re Discipline of James A. Ashton, A Member of The Bar of The United States District Court For The Western District of Pennsylvania. Appeal of James A. Ashton, 769 F.2d 168, 3rd Cir. (1985)
2d 168
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above entitled case, 768 F.2d
74, having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this
court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active
service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing,
and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not
having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is
denied.
I respectfully dissent from the refusal of the Court to hear this matter in banc.
It is undisputed that James Ashton: 1) practiced law in the District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, and yet is unable to prove that he has ever
been admitted to that court; 2) was convicted on two federal counts of mail
fraud related to his representation of clients, for retaining money advanced to
The appellate panel noted the rule of the district court that applicants to the
court's bar must demonstrate adequate personal and moral character. Focusing
on Ashton's present character, the panel determined that he was rehabilitated
following his earlier wrongdoing, and reversed as clearly erroneous the district
court's decision that evidence of recent transgressions supported denial of
Ashton's admission.
Id. at 529-30, 6 L.Ed. 152; Burr was cited as recently as In re Snyder, --- U.S. ---, ----, 105 S.Ct. 2874, 2880, 86 L.Ed.2d 504 (U.S. June 24, 1985).
10
11
12
13
Circuit Judges JAMES HUNTER, III, WEIS, GARTH, and STAPLETON join
in this statement.
The district court was also aware of serious rumors concerning Ashton's past
conduct, implicating him in a threat on a judge's life and in discussion of the
possibility of bribing a judge. Ashton denied these charges, but considering the
undisputed actions detailed above the court was understandably concerned by
these allegations and by the prospect of Ashton's admission at this time. The
purpose of disbarment is, after all, "to protect the public." In re Ruffalo, 390
U.S. 544, 550, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1225, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968)