In the Matter of Wade Anthony Robertson - #217899

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION TO VACATE; GRANTING IN PART 2 MOTION TO AMEND; AND VACATING DECEMBER 5 HEARING. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/14/2013. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
No. C 13-mc-80207 WHA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IN THE MATTER OF WADE ANTHONY
ROBERTSON - #217899

13
14
15
16

/

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO VACATE; GRANTING IN
PART MOTION TO AMEND;
AND VACATING
DECEMBER 5 HEARING

INTRODUCTION
In this action regarding his interim suspension from bar membership under a reciprocal

17

disciplinary rule, an attorney moves to vacate or otherwise amend the order on suspension. For

18

the reasons stated, the motion to vacate is DENIED. To the extent stated, the motion to amend is

19

GRANTED IN PART. The hearing previously set for December 5 is VACATED.

20
21

STATEMENT
On September 25, an order to show cause was filed as to the matter of Attorney Wade

22

Anthony Robertson. The order stated that Attorney Robertson’s status as a member of the State

23

Bar of California had been modified, such that he was “[e]nrolled as an inactive member

24

pursuant to Section 6007 of the Business and Professions Code” and he could “not practice law

25

while so enrolled effective September 7, 2013.” Pursuant to Local Rule 11-7(b)(1), a reciprocal

26

disciplinary rule, the order then suspended Attorney Robertson’s membership in the bar of the

27

Northern District of California on an interim basis. The order also stated that Attorney

28

Robertson could file a timely and adequate response under Local Rule 11-7(b)(2), and that
failure to do so would lead to suspension from membership without further notice (Dkt. No. 1).

1

The deadline for this response — November 4 — was suspended pending the determination of

2

Attorney Robertson’s present motions.

3

Specifically, Attorney Robertson moves to vacate the September 25 order, or in the

4

alternative, to amend that order in light of Rule 11-7(b)(2)’s requirements. This order now

5

considers both requests in turn.

6

ANALYSIS

7

1.

8

Attorney Robertson argues that the September 25 order should be vacated because Local

9

MOTION TO VACATE.

Rule 11-7 does not apply to him and the September 25 order thus suspended him in error under
Local Rule 11-7(b)(1). For support, Attorney Robertson asserts that he has not been “(i)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

convicted of any felony; or (ii) suspended by any court; or (iii) disbarred by any court; or (iv)

12

placed on disciplinary probation by any court; or (v) resigned while attorney disciplinary

13

allegations are pending against him” (Br. 11).

14

While it is true that Local Rule 11-7 applies to limited instances, some of which are listed

15

above, Attorney Robertson misconstrues the rule’s application to suspensions. Contrary to his

16

suggestion, neither Local Rule 11-7(a) nor (b) limits the rule’s application to suspensions by

17

courts (emphasis added):

18

21

(a) Any attorney admitted to practice in this Court or any attorney
appearing pro hac vice who is convicted of a felony, suspended,
disbarred or placed on disciplinary probation by any court, or who
resigns from the bar of any court with an investigation into
allegations of unprofessional conduct pending, must give notice to
the Clerk and the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court in writing within
14 days of such event.

22

(b) . . . .

23

(1) Whenever a member of the bar of this Court or any attorney
appearing pro hac vice who is convicted of a felony, disbarred,
suspended for reasons other than those noted in Civil L.R. 11-1(g)
or who resigns from the bar of any court with an investigation into
allegations of unprofessional conduct pending, the Chief District
Judge will enter an order suspending that member on an interim
basis from practice before this Court and affording the member an
opportunity to show cause, within 28 days, why a suspension or
disbarment order should not be entered. If the attorney files a
response stating that imposition of an order of suspension or
disbarment from this Court is not contested, or if the attorney does

19
20

24
25
26
27
28

2

1

not respond to the Order to Show Cause within the time specified,
then the Court shall enter an order of suspension or disbarment.

2
Indeed, Local Rule 11-7 applies to Attorney Robertson in light of its own terms. This is
3
because of the undisputed fact that Attorney Robertson was enrolled as an “inactive member” of
4
the State Bar of California, pursuant to Section 6007 (Robertson Decl. ¶ 3). “[T]he practical
5
effect of an order of involuntary inactive enrollment,” as permitted under Section 6007, “is to
6
suspend the attorney from the practice of law in the State of California on an interim basis.”
7
Gadda v. Ashcroft, C-01-3885 PJH, 2001 WL 1602693 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2001) (Judge Phyllis
8
J. Hamilton). Accordingly, this order finds that Attorney Robertson was “suspended” within the
9
meaning of Local Rule 11-7, such that Local Rule 11-7(b)(1) applied and the September 25 order
10
The motion to vacate the September 25 order is therefore DENIED.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

correctly suspended him on an interim basis.
11
12
2.

MOTION TO AMEND.

13
Attorney Robertson nevertheless requests that the September 25 order be amended. In
14
particular, Attorney Robertson asserts that he cannot show cause — as noted in the September 25
15
order — because he cannot comply with Local Rule 11-7(b)(2)’s requirement to “lodge with the
16
Court a certified copy of the entire record from the other jurisdiction . . . .” This is because
17
Attorney Robertson’s disciplinary proceedings in the State Bar of California are still ongoing
18
and therefore the record as to those proceedings is incomplete. To support this, Attorney
19
Robertson declares that there are matters pending before the original first-line administrative
20
hearing officer in charge of those proceedings, and that a de novo review process has yet to take
21
place (Robertson Decl. ¶ 9). He also adds that the Supreme Court of California has not issued an
22
order as to his potential discipline (id. ¶ 8).
23
For this reason, Attorney Robertson need not lodge a complete copy of the record. The
24
motion to amend the September 25 order is thus GRANTED IN PART, as follows.
25
CONCLUSION
26
The motion to vacate the September 25 order is DENIED. The motion to amend that order
27
is GRANTED IN PART and only to the following extent. Attorney Robertson need not lodge a
28
complete copy of the record as required under Rule 11-7(b)(2). Attorney Robertson, however,
3

1

shall file a progress report as to the status of his disciplinary proceedings from his other

2

jurisdiction, by whichever deadline comes first: (1) within 10 DAYS after the Supreme Court of

3

California issues an order as to his potential discipline, or (2) by 5 PM ON APRIL 14, 2014. Once

4

Attorney Robertson has timely filed said progress report, the undersigned judge may then

5

consider when Attorney Robertson should file a response under Local Rule 11-7(b)(2) to the

6

September 25 order, if appropriate. Failure to timely file said progress report will be construed

7

as a withdrawal of Attorney Robertson’s objections to his temporary suspension under the

8

September 25 order.

9

In the meantime, Attorney Robertson will remain suspended from practice in this district
court on an interim basis until further notice. The hearing previously set for December 5 is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

accordingly VACATED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: November 14, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4