In the Matter of Sharon Lynn Lapin - #165919

Filing 4

ORDER OF SUSPENSION (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
IN THE MATTER OF

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

SHARON LYNN LAPIN – #165919

No. C 12-80289 WHA

12

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

13
14

/

15
16

On December 10, an order issued directing attorney Sharon Lynn Lapin to show cause

17

why her membership in the bar of this Court should not be suspended due to her involuntary

18

inactive enrollment status in the State Bar of California. Local Rule 11-7(b)(2) provides:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

An attorney who wishes to contest reciprocal discipline must file
with the Court a timely response to the order to show cause. . . .
The response to the Order to Show Cause must set forth facts
establishing one or more of the following: (a) the procedure in the
other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be
heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (b) there was
such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give
rise to a clear conviction that the Court should not accept as final
the other jurisdiction’s conclusion(s) on that subject; (c) imposition
of like discipline would result in a grave injustice; or (d) other
substantial reasons exist so as to justify not accepting the other
jurisdiction’s conclusion(s). In addition, together with the
response to the Order to Show Cause, the attorney must lodge with
the Court a certified copy of the entire record from the other
jurisdiction or bear the burden of persuading the Court that less
than the entire record will suffice.

27

Ms. Lapin asserts that the disciplinary procedures before the state bar did not provide

28

adequate due process and were subject to infirmities of proof. The only facts that Ms. Lapin
asserts in support of this contention, however, are that her request for oral argument on a motion

1

for reconsideration was denied, and that she does not believe that the judge considered her reply

2

brief on that motion. These facts are insufficient to demonstrate a lack of due process. Ms.

3

Lapin provides no facts in support of her contention that there were infirmities of proof; she

4

merely states that she has appealed the state bar decision. This is likewise inadequate.

5

Moreover, Ms. Lapin fails to explain why she did not comply with her obligation to

6

lodge a certified copy of the entire record from the state court proceedings. Ms. Lapin’s vague

7

statement that “she is not in a present position” to provide a copy of the record and that she

8

hopes this Court will obtain the record on its own fail to establish that something “less than the

9

entire record will suffice.”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Cause not shown, Ms. Lapin’s membership in the bar of this Court is hereby SUSPENDED.
The clerk shall close the file.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: January 14, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2