## Facts

- Robert J. Snyder, a North Dakota attorney, accepted indigent defense appointments under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA).
- After representing a CJA defendant, Snyder submitted a voucher seeking nearly $1,800 in fees and expenses.
- Because the request exceeded $1,000, the Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit reviewed it and returned it for additional documentation.
- Snyder, citing difficulties producing the documentation in the requested form, submitted a supplemental application that was again rejected as inadequate.
- Snyder sent a letter (in a tone he later described as “harsh”) to a district judge’s secretary criticizing CJA compensation and documentation requirements, declining to submit more documentation, and requesting removal from the CJA appointment list.
- The district judge discussed Snyder’s concerns with him and forwarded the letter to the Chief Judge.
- The Chief Judge viewed the letter as disrespectful and indicated Snyder should apologize or face disciplinary proceedings.
- Snyder refused to apologize.
- The court of appeals issued a show-cause order; although it initially referenced Snyder’s refusal to accept future CJA appointments, the proceeding ultimately centered on the letter’s allegedly disrespectful character.
- The Eighth Circuit suspended Snyder from practice in the federal courts of the circuit for six months, citing “refusal to show continuing respect for the court” and labeling the letter “contumacious.”

## Issues

1. Whether a lawyer’s harsh criticism of CJA administration in a letter to a court employee, combined with refusal to apologize, constitutes “conduct unbecoming a member of the bar” warranting suspension under a federal appellate court’s disciplinary authority and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46.
2. Whether withdrawing from future CJA appointments, without more, is sanctionable misconduct demonstrating unfitness or harm to the administration of justice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit’s suspension order.
- The Court held that Snyder’s letter, though discourteous, did not show professional unfitness or conduct inimical to the administration of justice.
- The Court concluded Snyder had no continuing legal duty to accept future CJA appointments indefinitely, so withdrawal from the CJA panel did not justify discipline.
- The Court held that refusal to apologize, standing alone, could not support suspension absent clear evidence of unfitness or obstruction of the judicial process.

## Legal Principles

- “Conduct unbecoming a member of the bar” under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 refers to conduct contrary to professional standards that demonstrates unfitness to discharge continuing obligations to clients or courts, or conduct inimical to the administration of justice.
- Attorney discipline must be supported by clear evidence of professional unfitness or interference with the judicial process, not merely sharp criticism, discourtesy, or perceived disrespect.
- A court may not base suspension solely on a lawyer’s refusal to retract or apologize for critical speech when the record lacks harm to clients, dishonesty, obstruction, or disruption of proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Court held that discourteous criticism of court administration and refusal to apologize, without evidence of unfitness or harm to the administration of justice, does not constitute “conduct unbecoming” sufficient to suspend an attorney from federal practice.


In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985)