11 7 12 in Re Mirch 9th Circuit Petition for Reinstatement 08-80074_Documents

7/29/2019 11 7 12 in Re Mirch 9th Circuit Petition for Reinstatement 08-80074_Documents

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/11-7-12-in-re-mirch-9th-circuit-petition-for-reinstatement-08-80074documents 1/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

MIRCH LAW OFFICESMarie C. MirchCA SBN 200833, NV SBN 6747701 B Street #1310San Diego, CA 92101(619) 501-6220

Counsel for Respondent

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-80074

“URGENT”

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMPURSUANT TO NINTH CIRCU46-2(h)

Respondent, Kevin J. Mirch, through his attorney, Marie Mirch, hereby petiti

for reinstatement of admission to practice before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

is made pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 28, 2009, Ninth Circuit Rule 46

memorandum of points and authorities herein.

This request is made on an “urgent” basis in an effort to obtain reinstatement i

Mirch to present oral argument in the matter of Forsythe v. United States, Docket Num

which is scheduled for December 7, 2012.

In re:

KEVIN JOHN MIRCH, Esq., Admitted tothe bar of the Ninth Circuit: February 16,

1988,

Respondent.

Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-1 Pa



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

a. Introduction

The matter before this Court is a request for reinstatement of Kevin Mirch’s

practice before this Court following reciprocal attorney discipline imposed in an Or

28, 2009 (Docket Entry 7005680), also see Exhibit 1.

b. Legal Authority and Argument

Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2(h) is the authority under which Mr. Mirch seeks reins

requires: (1) a concise statement of the disciplinary proceedings, (2) the discipline im

Court, and (3) grounds that justify reinstatement.

1. Concise Statement of the Disciplinary Proceedings

Ths disciplinary proceedings arise from reciprocal discipline following

disbarment by the Nevada Supreme Court dated April 10, 2008. On June 9, 2008, this

Respondent Kevin Mirch to show cause why he should not be suspended or disba

practice of law before this Court, based on the April 10, 2008 order of the Nevada Su

FRAP 46(b)(1)(A). Mr. Mirch responded to the Order to Show Cause and a hearing

was held before the Appellate Commissioner.

2. The discipline imposed by this Court

Upon consideration of oral testimony and briefing offered by Mr. Mirch in re

Order to Show Cause, the Appellate Commissioner issued a Report and Recommend

Mirch be suspended from practicing before this Court for a period of three years begin

date of the Nevada disbarment (April 10, 2008).

The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, M

reciprocally suspended from the practice of law in this Court for a period of three ye




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

The suspension from this Court concluded on April 10, 2011. Mr. Mirch n

reinstatement to practice before this honorable Court.

3. Grounds for Reinstatement

An attorney is eligible for admission to practice before this Court if he is admit

before the United States Supreme Court, the highest court of a state, another court o

United States District Court. The Order from this Court required Mr. Mirch to make a

he is a member in good standing of the bar of any state. Not only is Mr. Mirch a me

standing of the State Bar of California, and thereby admitted to practice before the hi

the state, the California Supreme Court, he also has been reinstated to practice before

District Court of California. Thus, Mr. Mirch is eligible for, and should be granted,

to practice before this Court.

A. Mr. Mirch is an active member of the State Bar of Califor

Mr. Mirch should be reinstated as he is currently an active member of

of California, having completed a six month reciprocal discipline from the C

which was lifted on April 9, 2012. See Exhibit 2, State Bar of California C

Standing.

B. Mr. Mirch is admitted to practice before the United StCourt of California.

Mr. Mirch did not practice before any federal or state court during th

suspension in California. After the suspension was lifted, he was reinstated to p

United States District Court District of California. Exhibit 3 is a copy of

Reinstatement dated April 26, 2012.

c. Conclusion

Mr. Mirch has met all of the requirements for reinstatement to practice befo




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Mirch should not be reinstated to the Bar of the Ninth Circuit.

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorab

an order reinstating Mr. Mirch to the Bar of the Ninth Circuit.

Dated this 6th day of November, 2012.

MIRCH LAW OFFICE

By __/s/ Marie C. Mirch_

Marie MirchCounsel for Res




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

List of Exhibits

1. Order United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit dated July 28, 2009.

2. Certificate of Standing from the State Bar of California dated October 31, 2012.

3. Order of Reinstatement United States District Court Southern District of Californ




Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-2 Page: 1 of 3 (6 of 12)













C 08 80074 11/07/2012 ID 8392231 DktE t 37 4 P 1 f 2 (11 f 12)




Case: 08 80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37 4 Page: 2 of 2 (12 of 12)


