Ginsburg v. Kovrak

Decision Date24 March 1958
PartiesS. Regen GINSBURG, Chairman, et al., Individually and as members of the Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Philadelphia Bar Association, v. Stephen J. KOVRAK.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Argued November 19, 1957

Appeal, No. 278, Jan. T., 1957, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1956, No. 5458, in case of S. Regen Ginsburg et al. v. Stephen J. Kovrak. Decree affirmed.

Same case in court below: 11 Pa.D. & C.2d 615.

Equity. Before BOK, P.J.

Adjudication and decree nisi entered permanently enjoining defendant from practicing law in Philadelphia County; defendant's exceptions to adjudication dismissed and final decree entered. Defendant appealed.

For this reason we conclude that the injunction infringes upon no federal rights guaranteed to the appellant by either the statutes or the Constitution of the United States and, accordingly, the decree is affirmed on the opinion of Judge CURTIS BOK reported in 11 Pa.D. & C.2d 615.

Filindo B. Masino, for appellant.

Richard E. McDevitt, with him Leon H. Kline, for appellees.

Andrew Hourigan, Jr., with him Rowlands, Hourigan, Kluger & Spohrer, filed a brief for Pennsylvania Bar Association under Rule 46.

Before JONES, C.J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, JONES and COHEN, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

The Decree of the court below, couched substantially in the language of the Act of April 28, 1899, P.L. 117, as amended, 17 PS § 1608 (Supp.), enjoins the appellant, in effect: (1) from practicing law in Philadelphia County; (2) from holding himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law in that county; (3) from advertising in that county that he practices law or is authorized to practice law in any state, nation, country or land. This injunction applies only so long as the appellant fails to secure admission to practice in a court of record in Philadelphia County.

It is readily apparent that the injunction is intended to, and does, prohibit only the maintenance of an office and the practice of law in Philadelphia County (and, of course, anywhere else in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). It in no way affects the appellant's right to engage in the practice of law in Washington, D.C. or to try cases in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or in any other federal court or jurisdiction where he may be entitled to practice.

DISSENT BY: MUSMANNO

DISSENTING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO:

On October 12, 1943, Stephen J. Kovrak was admitted to the Bar of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

On October 15, 1943, he was "duly admitted and qualified as an Attorney and Counselor, Solicitor, Advocate, and Proctor," of the United States Court of Eastern Pennsylvania.

On December 6, 1943, he was "duly admitted and qualified as an Attorney and Counsellor" of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

On March 17, 1947, he was "duly admitted and qualified as an Attorney and Counselor of the Supreme Court of the United States."

Despite the impressive and documentarily established fact that Stephen Kovrak is thus duly qualified to practice law in four United States Courts, including the highest tribunal in our country, the Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County has issued an injunction restraining him from practising law in Philadelphia, and declaring further that he must not hold himself out as a lawyer, as an attorney, or as a counsellor, "or the equivalent in any language, in such manner as to convey the impression that he is a practioner of the law of this or any other State, nation, country, or land."

Injunctions are intended to strike at evil, prohibit wrong, interdict aggression, and prevent trespass. But this injunction is stultification carried into the hinterland of incredible extravaganza. This is an injunction against Truth!

It is not denied that Stephen Kovrak is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Is the United States not a nation, country or land?

It is not denied that Kovrak is an attorney and a counsellor. The clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has so certified with the seal of the United States. What right does a Court of Common Pleas have to say that Kovrak may not use a title or designation conferred upon him by a Court of the United States of America?

The Pennsylvania courts, may prevent Kovrak from practising law in the Pennsylvania courts, but they cannot, under the Constitution of the United States, prevent him from practising law in such United States Court as have admitted him to practice. [*]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides inter alia: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

In the case of Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238, decided May 6, 1957, the Supreme Court of the United States said: "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... Even in applying permissible standards, officers of a State cannot exclude an applicant when there is no basis for their finding that he fails to meet these standards, or when their action is invidiously discriminatory." In a Concurring Opinion, joined in by Justices CLARK and HARLAN, Justice FRANKFURTER wrote: "Refusal to allow a man to qualify himself for the profession on a wholly arbitrary standard or on a consideration that offends the dictates of reason offends the Due Process Clause." (p. 249).

In attempted justification of its decree the Court of Common Pleas No. 6 said that "There are certain activities that are preeminently local in nature and proper for the State to pass upon." Among those things which the lower Court declares the State passes upon are: "Marriage and divorce, the keeping of records, the qualifications for selling real estate and for teaching, the size of lobsters and the number that can legally be taken, who may practice the professions, and things of like nature." (Emphasis supplied).

The equating of regulating the size of lobsters with the practice of the law is indeed startling. But more startling than that is the idea that the State can regulate the size of lobsters. The size of lobsters is left pretty much to the parental solicitude of Mother Nature and Father Time. I presume that in speaking of lobsters, the learned Chancellor was referring to the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, section 699.7, added May 21, 1943, P.L. 281, section 1, which provides: "Whoever captures, takes or has in his possession, any lobster measuring less than three and one-eighth inches (3 1/8") from the rear of the eye socket along a line parallel to the center line of the body shell (carapace) to the rear end of the body shell (carapace) shall, upon conviction thereof in a summary proceeding, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding fifty dollars ($50) and in default of the payment of such fine and costs shall be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days." But what the capturing or carrying in one's pocket or other receptacle of a lobster measuring less than 3 1/8" from rear orbicular socket to posterior carapace has to do with practising law in the courts of Philadelphia, the Chancellor did not specify.

His reference to the case of Re Isserman, 345 U.S. 286 is more in keeping with the subject matter but it is still not determinative of the issue before us because the Isserman case had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Ginsburg v. Kovrak
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1958
    ...139 A.2d 889 392 Pa. 143 S. Regen GINSBURG, Chairman, et al., Individually and as members of the Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Philadelphia Bar Association, v. Stephen J. KOVRAK. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. March 24, 1958. Per Curiam The opinion of President Judge Bok ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT