Isserman v. Ethics Committee of the Essex County Bar Association

Background

A lawyer, Abraham Isserman, was permanently disbarred by New Jersey’s highest court after a federal district judge found him guilty of contempt and that conviction was affirmed by this Court in Sacher v. United States. The state discipline proceeding allowed the lawyer to appear before a local bar committee, file a formal answer, and make oral argument to the State Supreme Court before the disbarment order issued.

Reasoning

The main question presented was whether the state gave the lawyer a fair hearing before taking away his license. The Supreme Court denied review of the New Jersey decision, leaving the disbarment in place. In a separate memorandum, Justice Black said he would have granted review because the state court relied on findings made by a federal judge who had summarily convicted the lawyer without a hearing. Justice Black wrote that the record shows the lawyer lacked an adequate chance to confront witnesses and present evidence, which raised a Fourteenth Amendment due-process problem (a requirement that serious actions follow fair procedures).

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to review the case, the New Jersey disbarment remains effective. The Court’s action was a refusal to take up the constitutional question on the merits, so the high court did not settle whether the state’s procedures met due-process requirements. The memorandum signals a Justice’s concern but does not change the lawyer’s disbarment.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, argued for review and stressed that expelling a lawyer without chance to confront accusers or present evidence violates basic fairness.