The Supreme Court case Selling v. Radford in 1916 revolved around the issue of disbarment proceedings against an attorney, Mr. Radford, who was accused by a special committee from the Association of the Bar of Detroit for professional misconduct. The allegations included fraudulent practices and deceitful conduct that were deemed unbecoming to his profession as a lawyer. The court found him guilty based on substantial evidence presented during trial which proved his unethical behavior beyond reasonable doubt. As such, he was ordered disbarred from practicing law in any federal courts across United States territories or possessions due to violation of ethical standards set forth by legal profession's code of conduct.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Selling v. Radford, 1916, argued that the majority's decision to disbar attorney Frank D. Eaman was unjust and excessive. The dissenters believed that while Eaman may have acted improperly by attempting to influence a witness during a murder trial, his actions did not warrant such severe punishment as disbarment from practicing law. They pointed out that there were no clear guidelines or precedents for determining what constitutes "professional misconduct" and thus felt it was unfair to apply such harsh sanctions based on subjective interpretations of this term. Furthermore, they contended that Eaman had already been sufficiently punished through public censure and professional embarrassment resulting from his actions being made known publicly.