Talk:Disbarment

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Law Start‑class High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clinton "disbarment"

Bill Clinton wasn't disbarred - his law license was suspended for five years. There's a real difference between the two - one permanently prohibits him from the practice of law in Arkansas again, and the other explicitly prohibits such for a limited period. To call it disbarment is political and POV. JavaGuy 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the section. It was a lie designed to mislead readers. Dishonest entries should not be allowed in Wikipedia.--14 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.29.41 (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he didn't actually get disbarred from the Supreme Court because he resigned, it's worth mentioning him (just as pages on impeachment mentions Nixon). I added text to this effect, and noted that he was not actually disbarred. --Deusnoctum 10:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

"For most lawyers, this can essentially mean no longer having a livelihood."

Seems like this is an blatant opinion. What say the rest of you? Hachiko 21:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to disagree. If you spent dozens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and several years training for a profession, practice it for several years, and are then banned from it, I'd certainly consider that a loss of livelihood. However, the wording is somewhat awkward and could use changing. --Deusnoctum 10:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this does not seem to reflect a worldwide view of the subject. Perhaps a the style of "In the United States of America..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.135.49 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]