In re the

The judgment of this court, reported in 260 F.2d 189 , was reversed by the Supreme Court, — In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622 , 79 S.Ct. 1376, 1383, 1384 , 3 L.Ed. 2d 1473 . The judgment of that Court is reflected in two opinions, that of Mr. Justice Brennan, concurred in by the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas; and that of Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring in the judgment. The opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan is in three parts, so numbered. The first portion, dealing with the order of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii suspending Sawyer from the practice of law, concluded “Accordingly, the suspension order, based on the charge relating to the speech, cannot stand.” The second portion dealt with what this court called the “second charge”, namely, the charge that Sawyer had misconducted herself by interviewing a juror. With *357 respect to that the Supreme Court said that it agreed with the opinion of this court “that if the charge as to the speech were insupportable, in the present posture of the case the suspension could not stand.”

In the third portion of the opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan the Court upheld this court’s jurisdiction to review the order of…

(dissenting).

Let it be understood that the Supreme Court has not commanded us to direct the dismissal of the “juror interview” count. In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 636 , 79 S. Ct. 1376 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1473 . If I were managing the charges, as someone must always do, I would say the count was a hare no longer worthy of pursuit. But that decision should be made in Hawaii.

Then the court awards costs in favor of Mrs. Sawyer. Against whom? The Supreme Court of Hawaii? The State of Hawaii? The Bar Association of Hawaii ? In Hawaii the proceedings were not entitled as “plaintiff versus defendant,” although an effort was made to do that when the case was here. We restored the correct title here and the United States Supreme Court used it. I cannot understand that the Bar Association was any party to the proceedings at all after the case passed into the control of the Supreme Court of Hawaii. We ought to leave the matter of costs alone.

It is true that the Supreme Court’s judgment did award costs to the appellant against the State (then Territory) of Hawaii and the Bar Association of Hawaii. This is over the signature of the Clerk of the Supreme Court. But that judgment does not command us…

274 F.2d 356 Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harriet Bouslog SAWYER, a member of the Territorial Bar of the Territory of Hawaii, Respondent. No. 15109. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. December 28, 1959. John T. McTernan, Los Angeles, Cal., Myer C. Symonds, Honolulu, Hawaii, A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. A. William Barlow, U. S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, Edward N. Sylva, Atty. Gen., Territory of Hawaii, Morio Omori, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent. Before STEPHENS, POPE, CHAMBERS, BARNES, and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment of this court, reported in 260 F.2d 189 , was reversed by the Supreme Court, — In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622 , 79 S.Ct. 1376, 1383, 1384 , 3 L.Ed. 2d 1473 . The judgment of that Court is reflected in two opinions, that of Mr. Justice Brennan, concurred in by the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas; and that of Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring in the judgment. The opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan is in three parts, so numbered. The first portion, dealing with the order of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii suspending Sawyer from the practice of law, concluded…