Talk:Disbarment

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)

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)

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)

The CNN link sourcing the Clinton disbarment now redirects to CNN's front page. 67.207.214.82 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

He was suspended for 5 years but would have to re-apply to become barred again. That is disbarment, just with an option to re-apply in 5 years or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooochinoise (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disbarment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028075731/http://www.history.com/exhibits/impeach/whthous1.html to http://www.history.com/exhibits/impeach/whthous1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403061752/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209032021/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/clinton.bar/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/clinton.bar/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)