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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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