Case Name: Ginsburg v. Kovrak, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1958-03-24
Citations: 392 Pa. 143
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 278
Parties: Ginsburg v. Kovrak, Appellant.
Judges: Before Jones, C. J., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Jones and Cohen, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 392
Pages: 143–151

Head Matter:
Ginsburg v. Kovrak, Appellant.
Argued November 19, 1957.
Before Jones, C. J., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Jones and Cohen, JJ.
Filindo B. Masino, for appellant.
Richard E. McDevitt, with him Leon E. Kline, for appellees.
Andrew Eourigan, Jr., with him Rowlands, Eouri-gan, Kluger & Spohrer, filed a brief for Pennsylvania Bar Association under Buie 46.
March 24, 1958:

Opinion:
Opinion
pee Curiam,
The Decree of the court below, couched substantially in the language of the Act of April 28, 1899, P.L. 117, as amended, 17 PS §1608 (Supp.), enjoins the appellant, in effect: (1) from practicing law in Philadelphia County; (2) from holding himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law in that county; (3) from advertising in that county that he practices law or is authorized to practice law in any state, nation, country or land. This injunction applies only so long as the appellant fails to secure admission to practice in a court of record in Philadelphia County.
It is readily apparent that the injunction is intended to, and does, prohibit only the maintenance of an office and the practice of law in Philadelphia County (and, of course, anywheré else in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). It in no way affects the appellant's right to engage in the practice of law in Washington, D. C. or to try cases in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or in any other federal court or jurisdiction where he may be entitled to practice.
' For this reason we conclude that the injunction infringes upon no federal rights guaranteed to the appellant by either the statutes or the Constitution of the United States and, accordingly, the decree is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Curtis Bok reported in 11 Pa. D. & C. 2d 615.