## Facts

- Ruffalo, an Ohio trial lawyer, faced disciplinary proceedings alleging multiple counts of misconduct connected to his handling of Federal Employers’ Liability Act matters.
- The Ohio disciplinary authority initially charged Ruffalo with 12 counts, including allegations of improper client solicitation through Orlando, a railroad employee.
- At the disciplinary hearing, both Orlando and Ruffalo testified that Orlando did not solicit clients; he investigated cases, including matters where his employer was an opposing party.
- After this testimony, the disciplinary authority added a new allegation (Charge 13) based on Ruffalo’s employment of Orlando to investigate Orlando’s own employer.
- The disciplinary authority found Ruffalo guilty of several counts, including Charge 13, relying on the testimony already given by Ruffalo and Orlando.
- On review, the Supreme Court of Ohio sustained Charge 13 and one other count and imposed an indefinite suspension from Ohio practice.
- Federal courts initiated reciprocal discipline based on the state record; the Sixth Circuit disbarred Ruffalo from practice before that court based on Charge 13.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the Sixth Circuit’s disbarment order.

## Issues

1. Whether procedural due process is violated when a disciplinary authority adds a new charge during the hearing after the attorney has testified, without prior notice that the conduct would be treated as a disbarment offense.
2. Whether a federal court may impose reciprocal discipline based on a state disciplinary record produced through procedures that denied fair notice of the charge.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit’s disbarment order.
- The Court held that adding Charge 13 after Ruffalo and Orlando testified deprived Ruffalo of procedural due process because he lacked fair notice before presenting his defense.
- The Court reiterated that state disciplinary action is entitled to respect but is not conclusively binding on federal courts considering discipline in their own proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer in a disciplinary proceeding is entitled to procedural due process, including fair notice of the specific charges before the defense is presented.
- A disciplinary process that introduces a new charge mid-hearing, after testimony has been given, is constitutionally defective when the lawyer lacked advance notice that the conduct would be treated as a disciplinary offense.
- Federal courts have an independent duty to assess whether to impose attorney discipline and may not rely conclusively on state proceedings that fail to satisfy due process.

## Conclusion

Because the decisive charge supporting federal disbarment was added only after the relevant testimony was taken, Ruffalo was denied fair notice and a fair opportunity to defend; the Sixth Circuit’s disbarment order therefore violated due process and was reversed.


In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968)