The Third Circuit does not appear to impose attorney discipline often. The court website lists two cases, neither within the past two years. (In a 2012 case, the lawyer had filed 30 CA3 appeals, and 20 of them faced procedural termination due to the lawyer’s failure to meet filing deadlines!)
Discipline may be rare, but it happens, so the court has proposed to amend its Rules of Attorney Disciplinary Enforcement. Bruce Greenberg has cogently summarized the changes at his New Jersey Appellate Law Blog.
The main changes would be:
- creating an inactive status, which the court imposes either (a) by request, or (b) when the lawyer has not appeared in CA3 in 5 years and has not filed a form asking to remain active;
- exposing lawyers to CA3 discipline if they have been disciplined by another court — under the current rules, only disbarment or suspension in another court triggers reciprocal discipline; and
- clarifying that lawyers are not subject to CA3 discipline for administrative suspension in another court caused by, for example, failure to pay annual fees or meet CLE requirements.
Comments on the proposed rules can be filed by mail or email by March 9. Details here.
One thing I would change: the proposed rule has several 10-day deadlines. Back in 2009, FRAP wisely changed most of its 10-day deadlines to 14–the end result is usually the same, with less risk of miscalculation. For the same reason, and to harmonize with FRAP, the court should go to 14-day deadlines here.