Teresa Lynette Bloodman v. Robert Brech, Executive Director, Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct

I. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state supreme court to impose a imposes an interim suspension of an attorney’s license - deprivation of a liberty and property - interest-without prior without pre-suspension notice, without a hearing, and without any findings of fact, citation or rule violations, or without findings of “serious” misconduct as required by its own governing rules. This question implicates fundamental due process protections and presents a direct conflict among circuits regarding whether notice and hearing are constitutionally required before depriving a professional of their livelihood. The absence of notice, a hearing and any findings supporting the suspension would directly implicate the attorney’s right to procedural due process, a fundamental fairness principle the Supreme Court has consistently protected. II. Whether a remand to cure procedural deficiencies in attorney disciplinary proceedings can validate a constitutionally void order, or whether such a remand fails to remedy initial due process violations, creating a conflict among the circuits and state courts of last resort. This issue presents an important question of federal law concerning whether subsequent proceedings can cure initial constitutional violations, an issue this Court has not yet resolved. III. When a state supreme court remands an attorney discipline case for findings of fact but refuses to lift a facially void interim suspension, and the disciplinary committee then initiates disbarment proceedings based on the void order, does this process constitute a sufficient deprivation of liberty and property interests to warrant a full review of the state’s procedures? This question focuses on the escalating harm caused by the state’s flawed process. It highlights how the void interim suspension is being leveraged to pursue a more serious punishment (disbarment). The ongoing deprivation of the attorney’s ability to practice, without a valid basis, strengthens the argument for a federal remedy. It also shows the Supreme Court that this is not a one-off error but a pattern of due process violations.