In the Matter of Harriet Bouslog Sawyer, Also Known as Harriet Bouslog, an Attorney at Law

256 F.2d 553

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 25, 1956
• Docket: 15109_1
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, ordered suspended from practicing law for one year by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, has appealed to this court and now seeks an order staying the order of suspension pending her appeal here.

Opposing the motion, the Territory, and the Bar Association of Hawaii, which prosecuted the proceedings in the Hawaiian Court, argue that we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

A justiciable contention is here made that we have jurisdiction, both because there is the requisite value in controversy incidental to the order appealed from,¹ and because appellant asserts the order operates to infringe her rights under the First Amendment; Cf. Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692.

Without expressing any views as to the merits of the appeal, we deem it a justiciable question whether the right to exercise the privilege of practicing law may be terminated because of statements which are protected as constitutional rights. Cf. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 75 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216. Since appellant “has a fair question to raise as to the existence of such a right”, as she claims here (American Federation of Musicians v. Stein, 6 Cir., 213 F.2d 679, 683), we may entertain the motion for stay. And since the extent of the discipline ordered is such as to be comparable in severity to imposition of a criminal penalty, we deem it appropriate to apply the principle which underlies the grant of bail pending a criminal appeal. We are of the opinion that the application of the discipline ordered should await the determination of the appeal. The motion for stay pending appeal is granted.

LEMMON, Circuit Judge, dissents and will file his dissent hereafter.

1 . The object of the disciplinary proceedings, and the effect of the order, is to take away a right to practice. The object of appellant’s defense is to protect that right. Hence it may be contended that “[t]he right, therefore, is the matter in dispute, and its value to the [appellant] determines the jurisdiction”; Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 205 U.S. 322, 336, 27 S.Ct. 529, 534, 51 L.Ed. 821 ; and that this value is not less than the earnings for the period involved.