THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LawCrossing Feature
The Case of Mehta and Application of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine by Surajit Sen Sharma
The case of disbarred attorney Mahendra R. Mehta v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Supreme Court of Illinois is of importance for obvious reasons, but more than its disciplinary angle, the question of law settled by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit bears upon the concept of ‘finality of judgment’ and the application of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. The court held that the nature of ‘interim order’ inherent in the application of Rule 774 was final “until further order of the court.” The appellate court held that the qualifying clause “until further order of the court” did not reduce the finality of the order unless a separately initiated case in a higher forum or the Supreme Court supersedes that order.
In the instant case submitted and decided on March 21,
Board, the Administrator petitioned the Illinois Supreme
2012, the court upheld a suspension order as the final
Court to suspend Mehta’s license under its Rule 774(a).
judgment of a state court and affirmed that the district
The concerned Supreme Court clerk assigned a docket
court’s judgment pertaining to dismissal of the suit was
number to the petition and issued a show cause to
valid under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Mehta as to why he should not be suspended. Mehta submitted that other proceedings against him should
The case in nutshell is that the debarred attorney
remain suspended until the Commission’s Review
contended his right to due process was violated by
Board resolved the issue of the Hearing Board’s
an order of the Illinois Supreme Court suspending his
recommendation. However, the Supreme Court was
license to practice law. The district court dismissed
unimpressed and issued a mandate on December 29,
Mehta’s complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
2010 that Mehta’s license be suspended with immediate
holding that the suspension order was the final
effect and ‘until further order of the Court.”
judgment of a state court and the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint against it. The court
While the Commission Review Board was yet to come
of appeals found the district court to be right.
to any decision, Mehta sued in federal district court alleging that the suspension issued by the Supreme
The case started with the Administrator of the
Court violated his right to due process of law. He also
Commission filing a disciplinary complaint against
pleaded that the Supreme Court’s interim order created
Mehta in 2008. A three-day evidentiary hearing by a
‘constitutional bias’ in the review that was still pending
Hearing Board appointed by the Commission found
upon the original recommendation of disbarring him.
Mehta had violated four rules of professional conduct
He asked the district court to vacate the order and
and recommended that he be disbarred. Mehta was
dismiss the underlying disciplinary complaint. Five days
found guilty of converting more than $100,000 in real-
before the district court reached its decision, the Illinois
estate escrow funds and of lying to an Illinois court
Supreme Court, in a separately filed petition accepted
about his authority to take the funds from his client.
the Hearing Board’s recommendation to disbar Mehta. Following the Supreme Court’s decision the district
During the pending of an review upon the Commission’s
court held that it lacked jurisdiction in the subject-
recommendation in front of the Commission’s Review
matter under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
PAGE
www.lawcrossing.com
continued on back