The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is widely described as the second most important in the country, just a few city blocks from the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. The federal appeals court, every now and then, is confused with the D.C. Court of Appeals, the highest local court in the District of Columbia.

In 2016, Bernerd Young went to the wrong one—and, on Tuesday, that mix-up cost him in his challenge to about $1 million in penalties levied by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The D.C. Circuit ruled for the SEC.

Young, a former chief compliance officer at the Stanford Group Co., initially filed a petition to contest the SEC in the D.C. Court of Appeals after the commission found he was complicit in a Ponzi scheme from 2006 to 2009, at the height of the financial crisis. But it is the D.C. Circuit, not the D.C. Court of Appeals, that has jurisdiction over challenges to the SEC.

Realizing his blunder, Young later filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit—only he was a day late. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit threw out his case, ruling that his mistaken filing in the D.C. Court of Appeals did nothing to delay his 60-day deadline to contest the SEC's decision.

"Filing a petition for review in a state court that clearly lacks jurisdiction over the petition does not toll the deadline for filing in our court," D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins wrote, adding that "no extraordinary circumstance beyond his control" prevented Young from filing his petition within 60 days in the proper court.

Young represented himself in the D.C. Circuit, although a pair of lawyers from Mayer Brown were appointed as amicus counsel to represent his side of the case. In December, Young argued in the D.C. Circuit, along with Mayer Brown litigation associate Minh Nguyen-Dang. They faced off against Dina Mishra, a senior counsel at the SEC.

"He made a very understandable mistake. The two courts' names are very similar," Nguyen-Dang told the court.

Mayer Brown offices in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mike Scarcella / ALM)

Young, who is not a lawyer, told the appeals court: "I spent 19 years as a regulator. I know how to do my job. I know how to do due diligence. I know how to do compliance."

Lawyers "frequently get tripped up" over the names of the two courts, Mayer Brown partner Brian Netter argued in a brief on behalf of Young.

"Indeed, this court is evidently already aware of the potential for confusion here: The prerecorded message that greets telephone callers to the clerk's office at this court begins by informing individuals who are trying to reach the D.C. Court of Appeals (or the Federal Circuit) that they have called the wrong number," Netter wrote.

In Tuesday's 12-page opinion, Wilkins appeared to show little sympathy for Young's error.

"Amicus also invokes Young's pro se status as a justification for his confusing two similarly named courts," Wilkins wrote, referring to Young's self-representation. "But ignorance of the law is not an appropriate basis for equitable tolling."

In a concurring opinion, Judge Stephen Williams struck a more forgiving tone.

"The nearness of Mr. Young's miss, both in time (one day) and the names of the courts, coupled with his pro se status, present a fairly compelling case for equitable tolling," he wrote. Still, he said, a rule limiting the ability to extend the 60-day deadline "appears to me to throw an insuperable roadblock in his way."

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)

Williams quoted from a 2006 lecture by now-Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who served on the D.C. Circuit before rising to the Supreme Court during the George W. Bush administration. Roberts also formerly led the appellate group at the legacy firm Hogan & Hartson.

In the article, titled "What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different? A Historical View," Roberts commented that the local court's nearly identical name "has led to immense confusion to this day."