William Topp Maxwell v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Maxwell, a Texas licensed attorney (SEN# 24028775), was convicted in a foreign district, New Jersey, in 2014. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline (CLD) has alleged such conviction requires mandatory disbarment under Texas Law (without a meaningful opportunity to be heard in any forum). This practice in Texas of denying an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of collateral consequences violates this Court's teaching in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 377-79 (1971); Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917) and Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 176 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 (2010) among others and this Court's guidance is required as follows: I. The question for this Court is whether the due process clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V; XIV) as explained in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 377-79 (1971) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the imposition of collateral consequences (here disbarment)? The question for this Court is whether the minimum Due Process afforded in attorney compulsory discipline cases is that which is described in Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)? III. The question for this Court is whether the Court's holding in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 176 L.Ed.2d 284, 293, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010) requires an opportunity to be heard under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984) prior to collateral consequences (here disbarment)? -i-