Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ex Parte Brooks
Citations: 572 So. 2d 409; 1990 WL 210359Docket: 89-1354, 89-1379 and 89-1380
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; November 1, 1990; Alabama; State Supreme Court
On April 23, 1987, the Alabama State Bar temporarily suspended S. Robert Brooks III from practicing law due to allegations of client money conversion. Brooks was later convicted of theft, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed this conviction, leaving the criminal charges unresolved. On January 5, 1990, Brooks sought to lift his suspension, but the Bar denied his request on January 10, 1990, and he orally indicated his intent to appeal but failed to file a written notice with the Bar. Brooks subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court, but the first written communication the Bar received regarding the appeal was on March 21, 1990, which was a "Notice of Filing of Transcript." Brooks did not provide the Bar with a copy of the transcript or request the record of proceedings. He filed another petition for dissolution with the Bar on March 20, 1990, which was quashed. Brooks then filed three petitions for writs of mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking orders to compel the Bar to complete the record on appeal, hold a Rule 3(c) hearing regarding his second petition, and maintain the burden of proof in disciplinary hearings. The Court consolidated these petitions. In his first petition, Brooks requested the Bar to obtain the improperly filed transcript of the January 10, 1990, hearing. The Court found Brooks's argument that he complied with the requirements of Rule 8(d) to be meritless, emphasizing that mandamus is only appropriate when there is a clear legal right, an imperative duty on the respondent, lack of other remedies, and proper jurisdiction. Under Rule 8(d), the appellant must perfect an appeal from a disciplinary hearing by filing a notice of appeal within 42 days of the Disciplinary Board's decision and ordering a transcript of the hearing within seven days of filing. Brooks complied with these initial steps but failed to provide the Secretary of the Bar with a copy of the transcript from the January 10, 1990, hearing, which prevents the Bar from completing the appeal record. Consequently, Brooks's failure is deemed a self-imposed barrier to his appeal, leading to a denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Bar to complete the record. Brooks's second petition, requesting a Rule 3(c) hearing to dissolve a prior temporary suspension order, was quashed by the General Counsel on the grounds that Brooks had already pursued a similar remedy through appeal. The Court emphasized that mandamus cannot substitute for an appeal when an appeal is available. Thus, Brooks's petition regarding this issue was also denied. In his third petition, Brooks argued that the burden of proof in disciplinary hearings violated his due process rights, requesting the Court to declare Rule 3(c) unconstitutional. The Court reiterated that the appropriate method to challenge the constitutionality of Rule 3(c) was through an appeal from the January 10 ruling, which is currently pending. Therefore, this petition was also denied. The Court concluded by denying all writs requested by Brooks.