In the case of In Re Disbarment of Isserman, 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether attorney Abraham J. Isserman should be disbarred from practicing before it due to his conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice in a federal court proceeding. The court had previously suspended him pending final disposition of his criminal appeal. After he lost that appeal, however, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-3 to disbar him permanently. The majority opinion held that an attorney convicted of serious crimes involving moral turpitude could be barred without further hearing because such conduct was inconsistent with standards expected from officers of the court. They also argued that allowing Isserman to continue practice would harm public confidence in legal profession's integrity. However, three justices dissented arguing for more lenient treatment considering Isserman’s contributions during World War II and other mitigating factors like lack thereof any prior disciplinary actions against him.

In the dissenting opinion for In Re Disbarment of Isserman, Justice Hugo Black argued that disbarment was too severe a punishment for Isserman's contempt conviction. He believed that the majority had not adequately considered mitigating factors in their decision to disqualify him from practicing law before the Supreme Court. These factors included his apology and retraction of offensive statements made during trial, as well as his long history of service to clients who could not afford legal representation otherwise. Furthermore, Justice Black pointed out inconsistencies between this case and previous ones where attorneys were allowed to continue practicing despite more serious offenses. He also expressed concern about potential misuse of power by judges who might use such harsh punishments against lawyers they personally disliked or disagreed with politically.