In re Sanai

Accused lawyer was not denied due process of law in Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Board’s reciprocal disbarment hearing or in the underlying disciplinary hearing in Washington where he was not able to subpoena the authors of numerous judicial orders and opinions admitted to evidence in the disciplinary hearings.

Accused lawyer appealed a decision of the Oregon State Bar’s Disciplinary Board to disbar him reciprocally following Accused’s disbarment in Washington for numerous violations of the rules of professional conduct. Accused’s main argument on appeal was that the Washington and Oregon proceedings both violated Accused’s right to confront witnesses. Accused argued that his sixth amendment confrontation rights were violated because Accused was not allowed to subpoena numerous judicial officials who had been involved in the cases that generated Accused’s disbarment hearing, nor was Accused able to confront the authors of the many judicial orders and opinions presented as evidence against him. The Court held that neither the Oregon nor Washington proceedings failed to fulfill Accused’s right to due process. Attorney disciplinary hearings are neither civil nor criminal but sui generis and therefore do not necessarily afford the full array of rights available to criminal defendants. The Court held that disbarment was appropriate. Affirmed.