United States v. George W. Summet, Appeal of Jeffrey A. Dickstein, Esq

Good Law
862 F.2d 784·1988 WL 131926·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16933
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 14, 198887-3149California1,496 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallace, J.

This appeal is not by a convicted defendant, but by his lawyer. Summet was indicted and convicted, following a five-day jury trial, for three counts of income tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 . Summet’s lawyer, Jeffrey A. Dickstein, contends on appeal that the district court committed reversible error by finding him in contempt and formally censuring him. The district court had jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 . We have jurisdiction to review this order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

Dickstein was admitted to practice law in California in 1976. At the time of the trial, he resided in Anchorage, Alaska. We were advised that at the time of the appeal, he resided in Missoula, Montana. Dickstein was retained by Summet four days before the trial was scheduled to begin. Prior to that time, Summet represented himself. On the morning of trial, Dickstein moved to be admitted for purposes of Summet’s ease. Pursuant to Western District of Washington General Rule 2(d), a resident counsel, Alexandra Cock, was also retained by Summet. The court admitted Dickstein to practice in the district pro hac vice.

The trial was less than placid. The following is a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.