Here, MCEC contended that LH violated two disciplines,one is that lawyer shall not act prejudicially in Justice. The other is the banof extrajudicial statements by lawyers. LH asserted that the disciplinesare so vague and abroad, thus, violated 1st amendment. MCEC insistedthat according to the request by LH, the Court gave the chance LH to find any bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstance, butthere were not such things, thus, Younger abstain exceptions will not beapplied to this case. The Supreme Court decided that the issue in this case waswhether the state proceeding claims by LH as to those disciplines implicatedimportant state interests.
The Supreme Court found that State’s controlling theconduct of lawyers has much importance because unethical behavior of lawyers impairspublics and society. Here, ethics committee acted for state supreme court, whichshows that the vital state interests are involved. Thus, a federal court should abstain.