1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
MIRCH LAW OFFICES
Marie C. Mirch
CA SBN 200833, NV SBN 6747
701 B Street #1310
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 501-6220
Counsel for Respondent
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-80074
URGENT
PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
PURSUANT TO NINTH CIRCUIT RULE
46-2(h)
Respondent, Kevin J. Mirch, through his attorney, Marie Mirch, hereby petitions this Court
for reinstatement of admission to practice before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This petition
is made pursuant to the Courts Order of July 28, 2009, Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2(h) and the
memorandum of points and authorities herein.
This request is made on an urgent basis in an effort to obtain reinstatement in time for Mr.
Mirch to present oral argument in the matter of Forsythe v. United States, Docket Number 11-16511,
which is scheduled for December 7, 2012.
///
///
In re:
KEVIN JOHN MIRCH, Esq., Admitted to
the bar of the Ninth Circuit: February 16,
1988,
Respondent.
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 5 (1 of 12)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
a. Introduction
The matter before this Court is a request for reinstatement of Kevin Mirchs admission to
practice before this Court following reciprocal attorney discipline imposed in an Order dated July
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 reinstatement, and
requires: (1) a concise statement of the disciplinary proceedings, (2) the discipline imposed by this
Court, and (3) grounds that justify reinstatement.
1. Concise Statement of the Disciplinary Proceedings
Ths disciplinary proceedings arise from reciprocal discipline following an order of
disbarment by the Nevada Supreme Court dated April 10, 2008. On June 9, 2008, this Court ordered
Respondent Kevin Mirch to show cause why he should not be suspended or disbarred from the
practice of law before this Court, based on the April 10, 2008 order of the Nevada Supreme Court.
FRAP 46(b)(1)(A). Mr. Mirch responded to the Order to Show Cause and a hearing on the matter
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 response to the
Order to Show Cause, the Appellate Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation that Mr.
Mirch be suspended from practicing before this Court for a period of three years beginning from the
date of the Nevada disbarment (April 10, 2008).
The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Mr. Mirch was
reciprocally suspended from the practice of law in this Court for a period of three years, effective
April 10, 2008. Ex 1. In the same Order, the Court instructed Mr. Mirch that he could petition
for reinstatement after the conclusion of his suspension pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 46-2(h) and
include a showing that he is a member in good standing of the bar in any state.
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 2 of 5 (2 of 12)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
The suspension from this Court concluded on April 10, 2011. Mr. Mirch now moves for
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 admitted to practice
before the United States Supreme Court, the highest court of a state, another court of appeals, or a
United States District Court. The Order from this Court required Mr. Mirch to make a showing that
he is a member in good standing of the bar of any state. Not only is Mr. Mirch a member in good
standing of the State Bar of California, and thereby admitted to practice before the highest court of
the state, the California Supreme Court, he also has been reinstated to practice before United Sates
District Court of California. Thus, Mr. Mirch is eligible for, and should be granted, reinstatement
to practice before this Court.
A. Mr. Mirch is an active member of the State Bar of California
Mr. Mirch should be reinstated as he is currently an active member of the State Bar
of California, having completed a six month reciprocal discipline from the California Bar
which was lifted on April 9, 2012. See Exhibit 2, State Bar of California Certificate of
Standing.
B. Mr. Mirch is admitted to practice before the United States District
Court of California.
Mr. Mirch did not practice before any federal or state court during the six month
suspension in California. After the suspension was lifted, he was reinstated to practice in the
United States District Court District of California. Exhibit 3 is a copy of the Order of
Reinstatement dated April 26, 2012.
c. Conclusion
Mr. Mirch has met all of the requirements for reinstatement to practice before this Court.
The reciprocal discipline imposed by this Court and the State Bar of California is complete. As of
the date of this Petition, Mr. Mirch is an active member of the State Bar of California , and has been
reinstated by the United States District Court of Southern California . There is no reason why Mr.
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 3 of 5 (3 of 12)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Mirch should not be reinstated to the Bar of the Ninth Circuit.
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue
an order reinstating Mr. Mirch to the Bar of the Ninth Circuit.
Dated this 6th day of November, 2012.
MIRCH LAW OFFICES
By __/s/ Marie C. Mirch____________
Marie Mirch
Counsel for Respondent
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 4 of 5 (4 of 12)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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 California.
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 5 of 5 (5 of 12)
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-2 Page: 1 of 3 (6 of 12)
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-2 Page: 2 of 3 (7 of 12)
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-2 Page: 3 of 3 (8 of 12)
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-3 Page: 1 of 2 (9 of 12)
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-3 Page: 2 of 2 (10 of 12)
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-4 Page: 1 of 2 (11 of 12)
Case: 08-80074 11/07/2012 ID: 8392231 DktEntry: 37-4 Page: 2 of 2 (12 of 12)