In the 1984 case In re Snyder, the United States Supreme Court addressed an issue regarding attorney discipline. The respondent, a practicing lawyer in Ohio and member of the Bar of this court since 1965, was disciplined by Ohio authorities for professional misconduct involving neglect of legal matters entrusted to him and failure to carry out contracts of employment. He failed to notify this court about his suspension in Ohio as required by Rule 2(a). After being ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred from practice before this court due to his conduct and disciplinary action taken against him in Ohio, he responded with disrespectful remarks towards certain members of the Supreme Court. The U.S Supreme Court held that such behavior demonstrated a lack of respect indicative of an attitude towards legal procedures which is incompatible with standards expected from attorneys practicing before it. Therefore, considering both his professional misconduct in Ohio and disrespect shown toward this court during proceedings hereunder; it was deemed appropriate that he be suspended from practice before this court until further notice.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Snyder, 1984, it was argued that the majority's decision to disbar an attorney based on his criminal conviction and subsequent conduct undermined principles of fairness. The dissent emphasized that while Snyder’s actions were indeed reprehensible and deserving of punishment, they did not necessarily warrant disbarment from practicing law. It was pointed out that other attorneys with similar or even more serious convictions had been allowed to continue their practice after serving their sentences. Moreover, it was noted that there seemed to be a lack of consistency in disciplinary measures taken against lawyers convicted of crimes. The dissent also expressed concern about the potential implications this ruling could have on future cases involving lawyer misconduct; specifically arguing that such harsh penalties might discourage rehabilitation efforts among offending attorneys who wish to return to legal practice post-conviction.