In the 1988 case of Mark H. Oring v. State Bar of California, attorney Mark H. Oring appealed to the U.S Supreme Court after being disbarred by the State Bar of California for professional misconduct including misappropriation and misuse of client funds, failure to communicate with clients, and dishonesty in his dealings with both clients and courts. The Supreme Court denied certiorari (refused to review) without comment or dissent from any Justice, thereby upholding the decision made by lower courts that had found him guilty on all counts except one: charging an unconscionable fee. This refusal meant that they agreed with previous rulings which stated there was clear evidence supporting these charges against Oring who failed in his duty as a lawyer to uphold ethical standards.

In the dissenting opinion for Mark H. Oring v. State Bar of California, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold disciplinary action against Oring violated his First Amendment rights. The dissent contended that while lawyers should be held accountable for their actions, they should not be punished simply because their speech is deemed offensive or inappropriate by some people. It was further asserted that the court's ruling could have a chilling effect on free speech within the legal profession and discourage attorneys from speaking out about issues of public concern. Additionally, there were concerns raised over whether this case represented an instance where state power had been used to suppress unpopular views rather than protect legitimate interests.