Here, MCEC contended that LH violated two disciplines,
one is that lawyer shall not act prejudicially in Justice. The other is the ban
of extrajudicial statements by lawyers. LH asserted that the disciplines
are so vague and abroad, thus, violated 1st amendment. MCEC insisted
that according to the request by LH, the Court gave the chance LH to find any bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstance, but
there were not such things, thus, Younger abstain exceptions will not be
applied to this case. The Supreme Court decided that the issue in this case was
whether the state proceeding claims by LH as to those disciplines implicated
important state interests. The Supreme Court found that State’s controlling the
conduct of lawyers has much importance because unethical behavior of lawyers impairs
publics and society. Here, ethics committee acted for state supreme court, which
shows that the vital state interests are involved. Thus, a federal court should abstain.