Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Ex Parte Burr
Ex Parte Burr, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 529 (1824)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1824-03-17
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- discussing inherent power to control admission to the bar and to discipline attorneys
- upholding power of court to discipline attorneys who appear before it
- “the profession of an attorney is of great importance to an individual, and the prosperity of his whole life may depend on its exercise”
- Supreme Court will not interfere with Circuit or District Court’s regulation of its own bar unless “the conduct of the Circuit or District Court was irregular, or was flagrantly improper.”
- courts “have the authority to decide, within the bounds of due process, who will be admitted to practice”
- “The power is one . . . incidental to all Courts . . . .”
- “[I]t is extremely desirable that the respectability of the bar should be maintained, and that its harmony with the bench should be preserved. For these objects, some controlling power, some discretion ought to reside in the Court”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ex Parte Burr. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 260 opinions
Headnotes
- Legal Ethics — Power to Suspend or Disbar The power to remove an attorney from the bar is incidental to all courts and is necessary to preserve decorum and the respectability of the profession; it ought to be exercised with great moderation and judgment, but it must be exercised, and no other tribunal can decide a case of removal from the bar with the same means of information as the court itself. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 529–530
- Legal Ethics — Disciplinary Procedure Charges against an attorney in a regular complaint ought not to be received and acted upon unless made on oath; that preliminary requirement, however, may be waived by the attorney, as where the inquiry is invited by himself and the charges are made at his instance and on his request. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 531
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Supervisory Authority over Inferior Courts A superior court is not inclined to interpose its authority over the conduct of a Circuit or District Court toward its officers unless the conduct of that court was irregular or flagrantly improper, or the court clearly exceeded its powers or decided erroneously on the testimony; some doubt exists as to the extent of the superior court's authority in this respect. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 530–531
- Legal Ethics — Discipline Mandamus will not issue to restore an attorney suspended from practice where the proceedings below were not irregular, since the court would interpose only in a plain case and would not act where any doubt existed as to the testimony; interposition is less warranted where the complaint is of a suspension nearly expired rather than an absolute removal, because the attorney may then be restored by the court itself. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 530–531
Ex parte BURR.
Supreme Court of United States.
March 16, 1824. March 17, 1824.Mr. Emmett moved for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, commanding that Court to restore one Burr, an attorney of that Court, who had been suspended from practice for one year, by order of that Court.[a]
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a motion for a mandamus to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, to restore Mr. Burr to his place of attorney at the bar of that Court.
It is a very unusual application, on which the Court has felt considerable doubts.
*530 On one hand, the profession of an attorney is of great importance to an individual, and the prosperity of his whole life may depend on its exercise. The right to exercise it ought not to be lightly or capriciously taken from him. On the other, it is extremely desirable that the respectability of the bar should be maintained, and that its harmony with the bench should be preserved. For these objects, some controlling power, some discretion ought to reside in the Court. This discretion ought to be exercised with great moderation and judgment; but it must be exercised; and no other tribunal can decide, in a case of removal from the bar, with the same means of information as the Court itself. If there be a revising tribunal, which possesses controlling authority, that tribunal will always feel the delicacy of interposing its authority, and would do so only in a plain case.
Some doubts are felt in this Court respecting the extent of its authority as to the conduct of the Circuit and District Courts towards their officers; but without deciding on this question, the Court is not inclined to interpose, unless it were in a case where the conduct of the Circuit or District Court was irregular, or was flagrantly improper.
In the case at bar, the proceedings were supposed to be irregular, because Mr. Burr was put to answer charges not made on oath.
That the charges, in a regular complaint against an attorney, ought not to be received and acted on, unless made on oath, is admitted. It is a course of proceeding which is recommended by considerations, *531 too obvious to require that they should be urged. But this is not a proceeding of that description. The Court did not call on Mr. Burr to answer an accusation in the nature of an information against him. The inquiry was invited by himself; the charges were made at his instance; and the Court proceeded on them at his request. Mr. Burr himself, then, dispensed with the preliminary step of an affidavit to the charges which were to constitute the subject of that inquiry. He waived this preliminary. The testimony on which the Court proceeded was all on oath, and obtained in a manner which is not exceptionable. There is, then, no irregularity in the mode of proceeding which would justify the interposition of this Court. It could only interpose, on the ground that the Circuit Court had clearly exceeded its powers, or had decided erroneously on the testimony. The power is one which ought to be exercised with great caution, but which is, we think, incidental to all Courts, and is necessary for the preservation of decorum, and for the respectability of the profession. Upon the testimony, this Court would not be willing to interpose where any doubt existed. It is the less inclined to interpose in this case, because the complaint is not of an absolute removal, but of a suspension, which is nearly expired, after which, Mr. Burr may be restored by the Court itself, should not very serious objections exist to that measure.
Motion denied.
NOTES
[a] Mr. Emmett cited Tidd's Pract. 59. 1 Johns. Cas. 134. 181. Bac. Abr. tit. Mandamus.