In Re Disbarment of Isserman
Headline: Court sets aside earlier disbarment and restores lawyer Isserman after a majority finds no grounds, applying a rule that disbarments require a majority of participating justices.
Holding: A majority of the participating Justices did not find grounds to disbar lawyer Isserman, so the Court set aside the prior disbarment order and discharged the rule to show cause.
- Sets aside Isserman’s prior disbarment and restores his ability to appear before the Court.
- Affirms that disbarment requires a majority of participating Justices under the Court’s Rule 8.
Summary
Background
A lawyer named Isserman had been disbarred from practicing before this Court by an order entered April 6, 1953 under the Court’s then-existing rules. Isserman filed a petition asking the Court to rehear that disbarment order, and the Court considered the petition under its current rules.
Reasoning
The central issue was whether there were sufficient grounds to disbar Isserman now that the Court’s Rule 8 requires a majority of the justices participating to agree before any disbarment order can be entered. The Court granted rehearing, and a majority of the participating Justices concluded they did not find grounds for disbarment. As a result, the earlier disbarment order was set aside and the rule ordering Isserman to show cause was discharged, meaning the Court removed the prior restriction against him.
Real world impact
Practically, this decision undoes the prior disbarment and restores Isserman’s standing to practice before the Court by discharging the order that had required him to show cause. It also reflects that under the Court’s current internal rule, disbarment requires a majority vote of the participating Justices. The ruling was issued on rehearing and therefore reflects the Court’s current view rather than a new, separate trial of facts.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices dissented: Mr. Justice Burton, joined by Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Minton, for the reasons stated in the earlier April 6 opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Vinson; Mr. Justice Reed also referenced his prior dissent in Sacher v. Association of the Bar.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?