Mr. Loyd Wright advocates disbarment of any lawyer who publicly declines to answer, on Fifth Amendment grounds, questions relating to affiliation with the Communist Party or other subversive organizations or subversive persons.
Mr. Wright’s position is that disbarment should be the consequence regardless of whether the right is exercised before a court or before a committee and even in the total absence of supporting evidence of disloyalty.
Mr. Wright advocates policy. The issue is not as to what the policy is, nor, for that matter, what the law is. The issue is—what they ought to be.
In essence, the policy for which Mr. Wright contends is this: Exercise of the constitutional right—that and that alone—shall require summary disbarment.
I could not more emphatically disagree.
The disagreement may be deep and pervasive. Let’s explore this.
Stanley A. Weigel,
The Fifth Amendment and the Lawyer’s Responsibility,
34 Neb. L. Rev. 586
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol34/iss4/3