In the 1961 case In re Green, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a state could constitutionally require an attorney to reveal confidential client information during disbarment proceedings. The case involved Edward S. Green, an attorney who was asked by a disciplinary board about his involvement in certain transactions with clients that were deemed unethical and potentially illegal. He refused to answer these questions on grounds of attorney-client privilege and was subsequently disbarred for non-cooperation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Green, stating that forcing him to disclose such information would violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as well as infringe upon the confidentiality inherent in the attorney-client relationship. This decision underscored both attorneys' right not to incriminate themselves during disciplinary proceedings and their duty to maintain client confidentiality even when facing potential professional sanctions.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Green, 1961, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contempt of court conviction against a newspaper editor violated his First Amendment rights. The dissenting justices believed that punishing someone for criticizing judicial decisions could have chilling effects on free speech and press freedom. They contended that public officials, including judges, should be open to criticism without fear of reprisal as part of democratic governance. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such criticisms posed a serious threat to fair trial or administration of justice. Instead, they saw this as an overreach by judiciary power suppressing constitutionally protected expression under guise of preserving its dignity and authority.