Case Name: SACHER v. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1954-04-05
Citations: 347 U.S. 388
Docket Number: No. 307
Parties: SACHER v. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
Judges: Me. Justice Burton would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 347
Pages: 388–395

Head Matter:
SACHER v. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
No. 307.
Argued March 11, 1954.
Decided April 5, 1954.
Telford Taylor argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Eli Whitney Debevoise argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is a proceeding brought by respondent bar associations in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the disbarment of petitioner from practice in that court. Petitioner had previously been convicted of contempt in the same court. See Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S. 1.
The District Court, after disallowing eight of the specifications in the petition for disbarment, found as to the others that there was no conspiracy as charged therein and no moral turpitude involved, and that the proven contumacious conduct of petitioner stemmed from an excess of zeal for his clients that obscured his recognition of responsibility as an officer of the court. All of the conduct complained of occurred in one protracted trial involving many defendants and counsel. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494. There was no allegation or proof of prior misconduct in petitioner's twenty-four years of practice. The Court of Appeals divided upon the propriety of permanent disbarment, but unanimously questioned the importance of one of the two specifications principally relied on by the trial court.
At the time the District Court made its decision in this case, the contempt judgment was under review on appeal, and it did not know and could not know that petitioner would be obliged to serve, as he did, a six months' sentence for the same conduct for which it disbarred him.
In view of this entire record and of the findings of the courts below, we are of the opinion that permanent disbarment in this case is unnecessarily severe. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court for further consideration and appropriate action not inconsistent with this opinion.
Me. Justice Burton would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.