Charles G. Kinney v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

■ •fc • :V QUESTION-PRESENTED 30+ states have mandatory or integrated state bar associations who mostly use temp orarily-inactive attorneys serving as “judges” to impose discipline on attorneys. The DOJ and FTC have tried to get Texas (2nd in GDP) and Florida (4th in GDP) to comply with Dental Examiners, but failed. The biggest problem is still in California (1st in GDP). This state bar does not have an independent state supervisor (i.e. one not in the legal profession) to review discipline recommendations. Voluntarilyinactive attorneys are considered “active member participants” by the FTC [see 2015 staff report]. California argues [as many do] that: (1) its state bar judges are “inactive” attorneys [which ignores the FTC report]; and (2) its rules are equivalent to an affirmatively-stated and clearly-articulated state policy because its rules are “so detailed and prescriptive” that they “remove” all “discretion”. California's discipline adversely impacts the legal services market. Anti-trust violations by the Cal. State Bar and Cal. Supreme Court occur when petitions for review are denied so that the State Bar’s un-reviewed “recommendation” becomes a “final judicial determination” [CRC Rule 9.16(b)] Why was Kinney’s motion to vacate his “reciprocal disbarment” denied given that Dental Examiners was ignored by the Cal. State Bar (2015); Cal. Supreme Court (2016); and Ninth Circuit (2017)? i ‘