ISSERMAN
v.
ETHICS COMMITTEE OF THE ESSEX COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

U.S. | 1953-04-06
No. 348
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
345 U.S. 927 Supreme Court of the United States (1953) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Concurrence
Mr. Justice Black,

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas agrees.

I would grant this certiorari. It involves an order of the New Jersey Supreme Court permanently disbarring petitioner from the practice of law in that state. The Court’s order rests on petitioner’s conviction of contempt in a federal district court, affirmed by this Court in Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S.

1.

The record of the New Jersey proceedings before us leaves me with the belief that the state failed to afford petitioner the kind of a hearing required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although petitioner was allowed to appear before a local bar committee and to present a formal answer and make oral argument before the State Supreme Court, the full record persuades me that he was denied an adequate opportunity to confront witnesses against him and to offer evidence in his behalf. Instead of hearing evidence and making its own findings the state court’s order was based on findings made by a federal district judge who had summarily convicted petitioner of contempt without a hearing. I believe that a lawyer is denied due process when he is expelled from his profession without ever having been afforded an opportunity to confront his accusers and present evidence to deny, explain or extenuate the charges against him. See Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 512-513, and In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1954)
    …f the case for hearing before another judge. They would go further, however, and direct that petitioner be accorded a jury trial, for reasons set out in their dissents in Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S. 1, 14-23, and Isserman v. Ethics Committee, 345 U. S. 927. Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burton dissent. They would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the basis of its opinion. "Rulb 42. CrimiNal Contempt. “(a) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judg…
  • In re Disbarment of Crow, 359 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 1959)
    …, though presumptively correct, are not binding. See Sell [*1009] ing v. Radford, 243 U. S. 46. This is not the first time that state disbarment proceedings have been challenged as lacking in procedural due process. See Isserman v. Ethics Committee, 345 U. S. 927 (dissent). Sometimes we can act on the face of .the record, as where no serious issues of fact are involved. See In re Isserman, 345 U. S. 286, rev’d, 348 U. S. 1. But the important questions presented here turn on factual issues. The return in this…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw