Document: 347 U.S. 388 74 S.Ct. 569 98 L.Ed. 790 SACHERv.ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR CITY NEW YORK et al. No. 307. Argued March 11, 1954. Decided April 5, Mr. Telford Taylor, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Eli Whitney Debevoise, New York City, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 This is a proceeding brought by respondent bar associations in the United States District Court Southern of disbarment petitioner from practice that court. Petitioner had previously been convicted contempt same See Sacher v. States, 343 1, 72 451, 96 717. 2 The Court, after disallowing eight specifications petition disbarment, found as to others there was no conspiracy charged therein and moral turpitude involved, proven contumacious conduct stemmed an excess zeal his clients obscured recognition responsibility officer All complained occurred one protracted trial involving many defendants counsel. Dennis 341 494, 71 857, 95 1137. There allegation or proof prior misconduct petitioner's twenty-four years practice. Appeals divided upon propriety permanent but unanimously questioned importance two principally relied on 3 At time made its decision this case, judgment under review appeal, it did not know could would be obliged serve, he did, six months' sentence which disbarred him. 4 In view entire record findings courts below, we are opinion case unnecessarily servere. reversed remanded further consideration appropriate action inconsistent with opinion. 5 Judgment directions. 6 Justice BURTON affirm Appeals. 7 CLARK took part case. 8 REED, dissenting. 9 conclusion 1137, justify order entered against him seems so inimical orderly administration justice expression dissent. We trust purpose dissent will misinterpreted implied criticism those members who undertake task representation unpopular clients. Those provide such counsel spirit accordance dignity commended. They enhance tradition American lawyers seeing all have proper before courts. show reversing departs previous leaving exclusions their bars district except when has abuse discretion. 10 If protest were here, think danger adoption tactics akin other cases intense partisanship deep feeling materially enlarged. contagiousness unethical practices shown another member resulted conviction contempt, 717, suspension membership years.1 Jersey Supreme lawyer law state basis conviction. re Isserman, N.J. 269, 87 A.2d 903; Id., 316, 88 199. That our bar. 345 286, 73 676, 97 1013. 11 long drawn-out lasting January 17, 1949, occasional intermissions until verdict guilty, subsequently affirmed reached October 21, 1949. charges improper do refer isolated instance course reprehensible throughout trial. filed Association Bar City County Lawyers judge imposed punishment contemptuous months.2 upheld served. Sacher's Disbarment cleansing ousting.3 Punishment should considered prohibition mitigation discipline proceedings. fact, adds force need disbar. Court's per curiam incline contrary view. Apparently looks affirmance something must soften attitude toward disbarment. 12 Coming merits limited certiorari following question: 13 'Accepting facts memorandum Chief Judge Hincks, does exceed bounds fair discretion, particularly individual finding establish behaved pursuant deliberate concerted effort?'4 14 limitation accepted Hincks valid unassailable foundation decision: 15 'As Sacher, I find Par. 14, 16 '(1) intent delay obstruct trial, disregarded numerous warnings court concerning wilful, delaying persisted making repetitious arguments protests, * needless reiterations objections others, *. 17 '(2) bringing into general discredit disrepute, (a) insinuated various purposes newspaper headlines, (b) accused prejudice partiality, (c) disrespectful, insolent sarcastic comments remarks court, provoke intemperate might availed ground mistrial later error 18 'Mr. proved misconduct, paragraph my requires disbarment.' 19 (Record references omitted.) 20 '3. By Paragraph also 'made insolent, sarcastic, impertinent disrespectful conducted' himself 'in provocative manner.' charge abundantly cited record.' It take voluminous quotations huge document Hincks' conclusions. Our accepts truth. commented: 21 'That unprofessional needs exegesis: hold. Even more closely than dealt preceding Section touches vitals judicial process: even greater tendency attainment personal justice. And volume constitute serious obstruction Overpersistence argument, observed above, tends breed confusion. Provocative turbulence. Insolent tend undermine authority indispensable power effectively cope intrusions very nature development real 22 'For falling within branch charge, conclude required.' 23 grant certiorari, bases disrespect wilful delay, differs only measure required.5 without discussion rule federal exercise discretion overturned unless clear discretion,6 now summaryily places itself position acts, determine extent punishment. Certainly mean disclose support disbarring Sacher.7 24 Such change disservice progress trials. stimulates rather deters strategy intrudes views proprieties regions communities whose courtroom behavior diverges own. enough if stand ready say allowed stand. substitute judge. Calm reasoned presentation effective essential disrupted used demand tolerance differ. Conformity expected desired. room every shade short incitement crime. But violence, offensive expletives interference procedure courtroom, exalt over liberty reason force. An atmosphere filled unproven innuendoes wrongful conducive dispassionate appraisal truth matters investigation. uphold administered affirming judgment. compared (see note infra) thus: 'I feel (the lawyer's at trial) require firm disciplinary action. However, disclosed brief herein leaves reasonable expectation experience may restraining effect future safely privilege bar.' Appeals, Cir., 182 F.2d 416, denied 952, 1010, 1374. Later granted, 342 858, 84, 646. followed. Thereafter affirmed, 206 358. Ex parte Wall, 107 265, 273, 569, 576, 27 552: "The question is,' said Lord Mansfield, 'whether, man, continue profession free suspicion. way punishment; whether man whom they formerly admitted person continued roll not." 289, 677, 346 894, 218. refers language order, 'permanently disbarred.' This, course, read subject reinstatement. Drinker, Legal Ethics 49, collected C.J.S., Attorney Client, § 41, page 814; Am.Jour. 443; Fed.Dig. 355; O'Connell, 199 Cal. 538, 250 P. 390, 48 A.L.R. 1236. Reinstatement follow 'a sincere timely attitude.' says decision, exist hearing charges. Burr, Wheat. 529, 152, announced Marshall, guide Courts: 'There is, then, irregularity mode interposition Court. interpose, Circuit clearly exceeded powers, decided erroneously testimony. ought exercised great caution, think, incidental Courts, necessary preservation decorum, respectability profession. Upon testimony, willing interpose where any doubt existed.' 531, 152. Secombe, How. 9, 565; Bradley, Wall. 364, 214. These early mandamus proceed appeal certiorari. Thatcher 212 F. 801, 804. principles Burr still govern weight accorded remains unchanged. 358, 361; Chopak, 160 886, 887; Schachne, 887, 888; Spicer, 126 288, 292; Patterson, 176 966, 1. Burns 287 216, 222—223, 53 154, 156, 77 266: 'The simply determined familiar governing implies conscientious judgment, arbitrary takes account particular circumstances 'directed conscience just result.' While probation matter grace, probationer entitled tratment, victim whim caprice.' McWilliams, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 163 695, 697, cited.

Category: 7