When unauthorized practice of law is required under the threat of criminal contempt of court

I am doing research on attorney regulation across the United States, and, among other issues, rules pertaining to conduct of suspended and disbarred attorneys.

In many jurisdictions I find the following nonsensical rule:

when an attorney's law license is suspended or revoked, the attorney has to:

1) notify the courts, opposing counsel and now-former clients in pending litigation of his or her suspension (which makes sense), and, if the now-former clients do not appear within a certain time in those cases with new counsel, then

2) the suspended or disbarred attorney - an individual who has NO license to practice law (since the license is suspended or revoked)  - is REQUIRED to make a motion to courts, on notice of all parties, asking the court to allow the person to withdraw from representation in the case.  And, that motion must be made as if the suspended or disbarred attorney is now a party in the proceeding - which he or she never was to begin with.  So, now the individual is forced to appear as a party in the proceeding.

Normally, there is a restricted number of ways how an individual or entity can become a party in a court proceeding.

In civil proceeding (I go by New York rules) a party can consent to be a party in court proceedings by:

1) commencing a lawsuit or;
2) intervening into an existing lawsuit;

or the party can be brought into a court proceeding involuntarily by

3) being sued by another party, or
4) by being interpled into the proceeding as a third party defendant.

In all of these four scenarios courts play no role and may not mandate an individual or entity to become a party in a court proceeding.

The rule does not describe which party the suspended or disbarred attorney should become when making a motion requesting the court to allow him/her to withdraw from the case.

So, the suspended attorney must ENTER the case AS A PARTY where he has never been a party and where he has been only an attorney representing a party (which representation ended by operation of law once his license was suspended), and then ask the civil trial court to allow him to LEAVE the case.

A mandate to make a motion to enter in order to be allowed to leave is crazy where:

1) an attorney has no personal stake in court cases where he represents clients, but is not a party;
2) thus appearing as a party when you are not a party is frivolous conduct and wasting scarce court resources;
3) making a motion entering a case as a party to withdraw as a party is crazy;
4) making a motion entering a case as a party to withdraw as an attorney after the attorney's license is already suspended is unauthorized practice of law - and is crazy.

The rule is even crazier when applied to criminal cases where only two sides are allowed - the People (the prosecutor) and the criminal defendant.

Which "party" is the suspended attorney supposed to be on motion in criminal cases? 

It appears that courts do not give much thought to rules regarding suspended or disbarred attorneys, because these rules are meant to scare, and, thus, apparently, do not have to make sense.

I understand the need for greed - having a suspended attorney add to state coffers by having to file motions in every case and pay filing fees in all courts, but let's get real.

An individual who is PROHIBITED to practice law, is REQUIRED to practice law (make a motion on behalf of another) in order to be allowed to comply with the court order that prohibits him to practice law. 

And, if the individual does not comply with this rule forcing him to commit a crime of UPL, he or she is then exposed to another criminal prosecution, now for contempt of the court order of suspension or disbarment.


So, if the order of suspension is not enough to stop legal services in all court cases by operation of law, and additional motions are required in all cases separately, then the orders of suspension are not valid final orders, and it is the lower court and not the appellate courts who are the true regulators of attorney licenses - which is not what regulating statutes say.

And, if the order of suspension is not enough to stop an suspended attorney's authority to practice law on behalf clients, and additional decisions on motions, by multiple lower courts, in every single case the suspended lawyer has are required - then the order of suspension is not lawful, and the suspended attorney is not chargeable for contempt of court for violating such an unlawful and insufficient order.

On the other hand, if orders of suspension and disbarment are lawful - states and federal jurisdictions are violating suspended and disbarred attorneys elementary due process rights by REQUIRING them to VIOLATE THE LAW (UPL) as a condition of complying with a court order of suspension that prohibits them to practice law.

This rule which - the polite way to say it - lacks any rational basis, or, to put it bluntly, is simply raving crazy, is present in many post-suspension rules in many jurisdictions, state and federal.

So, if you are a suspended or disbarred attorney, the state requires you, for protection of the public no less, to violate criminal law in order to comply with it.

If the judiciary cannot make rules for regulation of the legal profession that are not looney, how can they make any day-by-day decisions at all?