Task: songer_casetyp1_9-3

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis.
Your task is to determine the specific issue in the case within the broad category of "miscellaneous". 

ORDER
This appeal, perfected from an order of the district court striking the name of John W. Collis from the rolls of attorneys admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, has been submitted for consideration pursuant to Rule 3(e), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Respondent was disbarred by the Kentucky Court of Appeals (now the Supreme Court of Kentucky), Kentucky Bar Association v. Collis, 535 S.W.2d 95 (Ky.Ct.App. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1049, 96 S.Ct. 775, 46 L.Ed.2d 637 (1976), and a collateral attack on said state disbarment proceeding was denied in Collis v. Reed et al., 413 F.Supp. 507 (E.D.Ky.1976), affirmed, Getty v. Reed et al., 547 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1977).
On January 20, 1976, the district court issued an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be removed from the bar of that court, and after intervening proceedings and a full evidentiary hearing the disbarment order from which this appeal was perfected was entered, and this appeal followed. It is clear from the record that the respondent was afforded a full measure of due process in a scrupulously fair proceeding, and that the findings of the district court were based on uncontroverted facts. It was the district court’s conclusion that respondent had “engaged in unethical and unprofessional conduct of the degree and with the frequency that [justified] the striking of his name from the rolls of attorneys admitted to the practice in [the] District in lieu of any lesser sanction,” and since no abuse of discretion is apparent from the record, the district court’s determination is not open to review. Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51, 37 S.Ct. 377, 61 L.Ed. 585 (1917). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is affirmed.

Question: What is the specific issue in the case within the general category of "miscellaneous"?
A. miscellaneous interstate conflict
B. other federalism issue (only code as issue if opinion explicitly discusses federalism as an important issue - or if opinion explicity discusses conflict of state power vs federal power)
C. attorneys (disbarment; etc)
D. selective service or draft issues (which do not include 1st amendment challenges)
E. challenge to authority of magistrates, special masters, etc.
F. challenge to authority of bankruptcy judge or referees in bankruptcy
G. Indian law - criminal verdict challenged due to interpretation of tribal statutes or other indian law
H. Indian law - commercial disputes based on interpretation of Indian treaties or law (includes disputes over mineral rights)
I. Indian law - Indian claims acts and disputes over real property (includes Alaska Native Claims Act)
J. Indian law - federal regulation of Indian land and affairs
K. Indian law - state/local authority over Indian land and affairs
L. Indian law - tribal regulation of economic activities (includes tribal taxation)
M. other Indian law
N. international law
O. immigration (except civil rights claims of immigrants and aliens)
P. other
Q. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: C