Egil Krogh, Jr., was admitted [to practice] law in the state of Washington on September 20, 1968. On February 4, 1974, he was suspended as a result of his having been convicted of a felony. [Krogh now appeals the disciplinary board's decision to disbar him.] The information referred to in the complaint charged that while the respondent was an officer and employee of the United States Government . . . and acting in his official capacity, in conjunction with others who were officials and employees of the United States Government, the defendant unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with his co-conspirators to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate Dr. Lewis J. Fielding . . . in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to conceal such activities.
The recommendation of the disciplinary board is approved, and the respondent's name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys in this state.
1. What ethical norm is central to the court's decision in this case?
2. What fact seems especially powerful in shaping the court's reasoning?
3. What reasons does the court provide for upholding the respondent's disbarment?
4. Outline the reasons why Egil Krogh, Jr., believed he should not be disbarred by the disciplinary board of the State of California.