In the case of Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department (1962), Mr. Willner appealed against a decision that denied him admission to practice law in New York due to character issues. The appellant had passed his bar examination but was rejected by the Committee on Character and Fitness based on his past conduct which included allegations of fraud while he was serving as an Army officer during World War II. He argued that this rejection violated his rights under the Due Process Clause because it relied heavily upon evidence from court-martial proceedings where he did not have full procedural safeguards such as right to counsel or cross-examination. However, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the denial stating that there were no constitutional violations in considering these records for assessing fitness for legal profession since they were reliable enough even without all formalities being observed at military trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to deny Willner admission to the New York State Bar based on his refusal to answer certain questions violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. He contended that this right should not be waived simply because an individual seeks a professional license. Furthermore, he believed it was unfair and unconstitutional for a bar committee or any other body of government to use someone’s silence as evidence of their unfitness for practicing law or any profession. According to him, such practice contradicts with principles of justice and fairness which are fundamental in American jurisprudence system.