Opinion ID: 1652195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sanctions for Contempt

Text: The petitioner contends that a determination of unconstitutionality of Rule 9, section 25 affords the respondent, Jane Doe, no defense to criminal contempt. See Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967) (upholding conviction for contempt for violation of injunction even though underlying ordinance raised substantial constitutional issues). The petitioner claims that the respondent should be held in contempt for violating an order of this Court. See Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 104 S.W.3d at 472 (stating that the confidentiality requirement of section 25 should be considered a standing order of this Court). The respondent argues that, in the interest of institutional dignity, the Court should not punish her for violating an unconstitutional rule. Until the release of Doe v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility on May 8, 2003, forty-three days after the letters at issue in this case were sent, Jane Doe had no notice that Rule 9, section 25 should be considered a standing order of the Court. Furthermore, this case does not involve a separate order from the underlying rule. Cf. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967). We conclude, therefore, that criminal sanctions are not appropriate under the circumstances of this case.