In re: Howard W. Rubinstein

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13109
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-mc-250551
In re: HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN,
Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 23, 2021)
Before MARTIN, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In 2014, a Texas court sanctioned Howard Rubinstein, a lawyer, with a two-
year probated suspension for professional misconduct. Upon learning of the
sanction Rubinstein received in Texas, the District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (the “District Court”) then disbarred him from practicing there. The
1 The order under review in this appeal was filed in No. 1:18-mc-25055 (S.D. Fla.), yet
the notice of appeal was filed in No. 1:18-mc-25276 (S.D. Fla.). After notice from this Court,
Rubinstein moved to correct this clerical error. His motion was granted by this Court, which
“construe[d] the notice of appeal in this case as appealing the ‘Order of Disbarment’ (Doc. 30)
entered by the Southern District of Florida on May 21, 2019 in Case No. 18-mc-25055.”
USCA11 Case: 19-13109 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
disbarment was based on the misconduct found in the Texas case, but also on
misconduct in the Southern District of Florida that was independently identified by
the District Court. Rubinstein appealed, and our Court vacated the disbarment
order. In vacating the disbarment order, this Court observed that Rubinstein
received no notice that he could be disciplined for the Florida misconduct until he
was questioned about it at a May 2015 hearing. On that record, this Court held that
the District Court “did not follow its own local rules and, in the process, ran afoul
of the settled principle that an attorney accused of misconduct must be notified of
the charges prior to the commencement of the proceedings against him or her.”
The case was remanded.
On remand, the District Court again disbarred Rubinstein from practicing
law in the Southern District of Florida, but this time it said its decision was based
only on the Texas discipline. This appeal addresses Rubinstein’s most recent
disbarment order. We review a district court’s disbarment order for abuse of
discretion. In re Calvo, 88 F.3d 962, 967 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). A district
court abuses its discretion when neither its decision nor the record “provide[s]
sufficient explanation to enable meaningful appellate review.” Friends of the
Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 678 F.3d 1199, 1201 (11th Cir. 2012)
(per curiam).
USCA11 Case: 19-13109 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In many instances, the record and the circumstances may mean that a
summary order is satisfactory in this context. But here, neither the District Court’s
order nor the record gives an explanation for Rubinstein’s disbarment sufficient to
enable this Court to conduct meaningful appellate review. Although the
disbarment order says it “concerns” reciprocal discipline based on the Texas case,
it does not include anything explaining the decision to disbar Rubinstein or the
decision to impose greater discipline than that imposed in the Texas case. The
District Court thus abused its discretion in disbarring Rubinstein without
sufficiently explaining its decision. See id. We therefore vacate the disbarment
order and remand this disciplinary action for development of a record that will
enable appellate review of the decision of the District Court.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
USCA11 Case: 19-13109 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --