Sacher v. Association of Bar of City of New York

Background

A group of local bar associations brought a proceeding in the federal district court to disbar a lawyer who had represented defendants in a long federal criminal trial. The lawyer had also been convicted of contempt in the same trial. The district court dismissed eight specifications and found that on the proven charges there was no conspiracy or moral turpitude, concluding the lawyer's contumacious conduct arose from excess zeal. The conduct occurred during the Dennis trial, and there was no allegation of prior misconduct in his twenty-four years of practice. The Court of Appeals was divided on permanent disbarment.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether permanent disbarment was an appropriate penalty. The Court noted that when the district court reached its decision the contempt conviction was under appeal and the court could not foresee that the lawyer would serve a six-month sentence. Reviewing the record and the lower courts' findings, the Court concluded that permanent disbarment was unnecessarily severe. The Court reversed the disbarment judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further consideration and appropriate action consistent with the opinion. Justice Burton would have affirmed; Justice Clark did not participate.

Real world impact

This ruling affects the lawyer directly and alters the immediate outcome of the disciplinary proceeding by setting aside permanent disbarment and sending the matter back for reevaluation. It means the district court must reconsider what discipline, if any, should be imposed, and it allows for lesser measures. The decision is not an acquittal of misconduct; it narrows the scope of punishment and leaves final discipline to further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Reed dissented, arguing the Court improperly substituted its judgment for the trial court's discretion. He emphasized the repeated misconduct during the trial, maintained that contempt punishment should not reduce the need for disbarment, and warned that reversing disbarment would encourage similar courtroom tactics.