## Facts

- A group of Kenton County, Kentucky residents, including ministers, filed a petition asking a federal district court to discipline Ulie J. Howard, a lawyer admitted to that court and the elected Commonwealth’s Attorney for the local judicial district.
- The petition alleged that, over many years, Howard tolerated and effectively protected large-scale illegal gambling in the county, including widespread slot-machine operations and gambling-related telephone activity.
- Evidence presented included testimony describing open gambling activity, slot machines accessible to minors, and the existence of identifiable gambling operators reflected in occupational tax and licensing records.
- Howard denied wrongdoing and asserted he lacked knowledge of illegal gambling and could not proceed without proper affidavits or sworn complaints initiating prosecutions.
- The district court issued a rule to show cause, took testimony from both sides, and considered Howard’s motion to dismiss along with the merits of discipline.

## Issues

1. Whether private citizens may initiate, by formal petition, a federal court inquiry seeking discipline of a member of that court’s bar based on alleged misconduct in a state prosecutorial office.
2. Whether Howard’s proven conduct as Commonwealth’s Attorney showed moral unfitness warranting federal court discipline, including removal from or restriction of practice before the federal court.

## Decision

- The court denied Howard’s motion to dismiss, holding that citizens may bring alleged official misconduct to the attention of the court, even if the chosen formal filing method was procedurally irregular.
- The court treated the matter as an exercise of the federal court’s inherent authority to supervise and discipline its own bar, rather than as a private lawsuit controlled by the petitioners.
- On the merits, the court found that Howard’s sustained failure to address notorious illegal gambling, in light of the scope and openness of the activity and readily available identifying information, demonstrated moral unfitness inconsistent with continued federal bar membership.
- The court ordered disciplinary action against Howard affecting his ability to practice before the federal court.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts possess inherent authority to regulate, discipline, and disbar attorneys admitted to practice before them to protect the integrity of the court and its proceedings.
- A citizen may alert a court to alleged misconduct by a public officer or attorney; once the court acts, the discipline matter proceeds as a judicial inquiry under the court’s control, not as a private cause of action.
- Attorney discipline may rest on conduct occurring outside federal litigation, including misconduct or serious neglect in state public office, when it bears on character and fitness to serve as an officer of the federal court.
- Persistent toleration of widespread criminal activity by a prosecutor, whether characterized as corrupt protection or gross dereliction, can constitute moral unfitness warranting professional discipline.

## Conclusion

The district court held that citizens could trigger a disciplinary inquiry and that the court, exercising inherent power over its bar, could discipline an attorney for misconduct in state office; it concluded that the prosecutor’s long-term toleration of pervasive illegal gambling showed moral unfitness and imposed federal disciplinary sanctions.


Wilbur v. Howard, 70 F. Supp. 930 (E.D. Ky. 1947)