VIRGINIA:
In the Supreme Court of Virginia Held at the Supreme Court
Building in the City of Richmond on Friday, the 2nd day of
November, 2001.
Drew Virgil Tidwell, Appellant,
against Record No. 010692
VSB Docket No. 00-000-1453
Virginia State Bar, Appellee.
Upon an appeal of right from an order entered by the
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board on the 8th day of
December, 2000.
Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument by the
appellant, in proper person, and by counsel for the appellee, the
Court is of opinion there is no error in the order of the Virginia
State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking appellant's license to
practice law in this Commonwealth pursuant to the provisions of
Part Six, § IV, Para. 13(G)(2001) of the Rules of Court (Paragraph
13(G)).
On September 3, 1999, appellant, Drew Virgil Tidwell, entered
a plea of guilty in the state of New York to a class E felony,
Leaving the Scene of an Incident without Reporting, New York
Vehicle & Traffic Law § 600(2)(a). At the plea hearing, the
prosecutor represented to the court that Tidwell "will surrender
his license to practice law immediately – immediately upon his
entering this plea." Thereafter, the court accepted the plea and
entered an order of conviction. Upon notification of Tidwell's
conviction, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate
Division, Fourth Judicial Department, entered an order striking
Tidwell's name from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice
law in New York state. Pursuant to New York Judiciary Law
§ 90(4)(a), Tidwell's disbarment was automatic on his conviction of
a felony, and no additional procedures were provided under these
circumstances.
Paragraph 13(G) requires that the Disciplinary Board issue an
order to show cause why an attorney should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this jurisdiction when the Disciplinary
Board is notified that the attorney has been disbarred from the
practice of law in another jurisdiction. The rule provides only
three grounds upon which an attorney, in response to a show cause
order, may allege that disbarment is improper.
The Disciplinary Board received notice that Tidwell was
disbarred by New York state and issued a show cause order directed
to him. In response, Tidwell alleged that disbarment was improper
because "the record of the proceeding in the other jurisdiction
would clearly show that such proceeding was so lacking in notice or
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a denial of due process."
Part Six, § IV, Para. 13 (G)(1). Following a hearing, the
Disciplinary Board found that Tidwell failed to show that he was
denied due process and ordered that his license to practice law in
this Commonwealth be revoked.
2
On appeal, Tidwell's primary complaint is that the
Disciplinary Board erred in concluding that he failed to show that
he was denied due process because he established that New York did
not afford him the opportunity for notice and hearing prior to
disbarment. In making this assertion, Tidwell maintains that under
Paragraph 13(G), the relevant proceeding under review is the
disbarment proceeding alone which, under New York law, consists of
automatic disbarment upon conviction of a felony.
This construction of Paragraph 13(G) is too narrow. It is
well settled that legislatures have a right to prescribe standards
of practice for attorneys and may identify situations in which an
attorney's misdeeds will result in automatic disbarment. See,
e.g., Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 195-96 (1898); In re
Collins, 188 Cal. 701, 704-06, 206 P. 990, 991-92 (1922).
Therefore, the question in this case is not whether automatic
disbarment violates due process, but whether the record shows that
the entire process resulting in disbarment was so flawed that it
denied Tidwell due process. * Thus the Disciplinary Board properly
considered the record of the criminal proceeding along with the
disbarment proceeding in making its determination.
In considering a license revocation order of the Disciplinary
Board, this Court makes an independent review of the record, giving
*
Tidwell's specific assignment of error challenging the
admission of the transcript of the criminal proceeding was waived
because he did not object to its admission at the hearing before
the Disciplinary Board.
3
the factual findings of the Disciplinary Board substantial weight
and viewing them as prima facie correct. The conclusions of the
Board will be sustained unless they are not justified by a
reasonable view of the evidence or are contrary to the law. Blue
v. Seventh Dist. Comm. of Virginia State Bar, 220 Va. 1056, 1061-
62, 265 S.E.2d 753, 757 (1980).
The record clearly establishes that Tidwell was not denied
notice because he had notice of the crime of which he was charged
and notice that conviction of such crime would result in
disbarment.
Similarly, the record shows Tidwell was not denied the
opportunity to be heard. Tidwell had the right to defend against
the criminal charge but he chose to plead guilty. Regardless of
whether Tidwell "surrendered his license" or his license was
revoked automatically, he knew that as a result of pleading guilty
to the felony, he would be disbarred. Tidwell does not claim he
was coerced or otherwise denied due process in connection with his
guilty plea and criminal conviction. He chose to plead guilty and
was fully aware of the consequences that decision would have for
his law license. Furthermore, Tidwell was entitled to appeal the
disbarment order to the New York Court of Appeals, which he did not
do. (N.Y. Jud. Law § 90(8)).
Based on our review of the record, we hold that the
Disciplinary Board did not err in concluding that Tidwell failed to
satisfy his burden to show that he was denied due process because
4
the evidence before the Disciplinary Board supported a finding that
the New York proceedings resulting in Tidwell's disbarment did not
violate Tidwell's due process rights.
Tidwell's remaining assignments of error are without merit.
Accordingly, the order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary
Board is affirmed. The appellant shall pay to the appellee $30.00
damages.
This order shall be certified to the Virginia State Bar
Disciplinary Board and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.
A Copy,
Teste:
David B. Beach,
Clerk
5