In the case of Spevack v. Klein, attorney Melvin Spevack was disbarred from practicing law in New York for invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a disciplinary hearing. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York and the State Bar Association had asked him to produce financial records and testify about alleged professional misconduct. When he refused, citing his constitutional rights, they disbarred him on grounds that his refusal constituted professional misconduct itself. Spevack appealed this decision all the way up to U.S Supreme Court arguing that compelling an attorney to choose between self-incrimination or losing their livelihood violated due process under Fourteenth Amendment. In 1967, by a vote of 5-4, U.S Supreme court agreed with Spevack ruling that privilege against self-incrimination applies not only in criminal cases but also in any other proceedings (civil or administrative) where answers might incriminate him later.

In the dissenting opinion for Spevack v. Klein, Justice White argued that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination should not be extended to disciplinary proceedings involving attorneys. He contended that such an extension would unduly interfere with a state's ability to regulate its own legal profession and maintain high ethical standards among lawyers. Furthermore, he believed it was inappropriate for the court to impose federal constitutional restraints on states in this context without clear evidence of abuse or injustice. In his view, there were sufficient safeguards already in place at the state level to protect attorneys from unfair treatment during disciplinary proceedings.