Mehta v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing under Rooker-Feldman Doctrine plaintiff-attorney’s section 1983 action alleging that Ill. Supreme Ct.’s order suspending him during pendency of ARDC proceeding (that charged plaintiff with wrongfully converting more than $100,000 in client’s real-estate escrow funds) violated plaintiff’s due process rights. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s argument that Rooker-Feldman Doctrine did not apply because instant suspension did not constitute final judgment and further found that instant interim suspension constituted final judgment that could only be reviewed via petition for certiorari with U.S. Supreme Ct.