## Facts

- Leonard W. Krouner was admitted to practice law in New York and was also admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court.
- Krouner pleaded guilty in New York state court to felony offenses involving fraud and larceny.
- Following the felony convictions, New York disbarred Krouner without conducting a separate hearing in the state disciplinary process.
- The United States Tax Court commenced its own attorney-discipline proceeding to determine whether Krouner should continue to be permitted to practice before that court.
- The Tax Court held a hearing before a panel and allowed Krouner to present reasons the Tax Court should not disbar him and to present mitigating circumstances.
- At the Tax Court hearing, Krouner admitted he committed the crimes but argued that disbarment was not warranted because of mitigation.
- When the panel asked Krouner to explain the claimed mitigating circumstances, his responses were equivocal.
- The Tax Court entered an order disbarring Krouner from practice before the Tax Court.
- Krouner sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the Tax Court’s disciplinary decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States Tax Court denied due process or otherwise erred by disbarring Krouner based on his New York felony convictions and state disbarment, where the Tax Court held its own hearing and permitted Krouner to argue mitigation.
2. Whether the Tax Court abused its discretion in concluding that Krouner’s admitted felony fraud-and-larceny conduct warranted disbarment from practice before the Tax Court.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s order disbarring Krouner.
- The court held that the Tax Court provided Krouner an adequate opportunity to be heard by conducting a hearing at which he could contest disbarment and offer mitigation.
- The court found no basis to disturb the Tax Court’s judgment that Krouner’s admitted felony conduct involving fraud and larceny supported disbarment, particularly given his failure to offer clear, persuasive mitigating facts.

## Legal Principles

- The United States Tax Court has authority to regulate and discipline attorneys who practice before it, including by disbarment.
- A federal court may impose discipline based on a lawyer’s criminal convictions and related state bar discipline, so long as the lawyer is given notice and a meaningful chance to explain why similar discipline should not be imposed.
- Due process in attorney-discipline matters generally requires notice of the grounds for discipline and a real opportunity to be heard; a hearing focused on mitigation can satisfy that requirement when the misconduct is established by guilty pleas and convictions.
- Felony offenses involving fraud or dishonesty are strong evidence of lack of fitness to practice before a tribunal that depends on truthful representations and reliable advocacy.
- Appellate review of a lower tribunal’s attorney-discipline order is deferential; absent legal error or an abuse of discretion, the discipline will be upheld.

## Conclusion

In *Krouner v. United States Tax Court*, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Tax Court’s disbarment of an attorney who pleaded guilty to New York felonies involving fraud and larceny, concluding that the Tax Court acted within its authority and provided adequate process by holding a hearing where Krouner could present mitigating circumstances, which the court found unconvincing.


Krouner v. United States Tax Court, 202 F. App’x 470 (2006)