Lawyer suspensions without hearings

1. Whether the interim suspension of an attorney's license to practice law — a protected interest, Schware v. Board of Law Examiners of New Mexico , 353 U.S. 232 (1957), deprived in a proceeding this Court has described as quasi-criminal, In re Ruffalo , 390 U.S. 544 (1968) — without notice, petition, or hearing, without any finding of probable misconduct or of harm to the public, and without any prompt post-deprivation hearing, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed in Barry v. Barchi , 443 U.S. 55 (1979). 2. Whether due process is violated where a state's highest court rests an attorney's suspension exclusively on admissions, stipulations, and consent-hearing presentations that the state's own rules withdraw and prohibit from any use upon the failure of a conditional consent disposition, and imposes that suspension immediately after the attorney exercises his express rule-conferred right to decline a modification to the proposed consent disposition. 3. Whether, under Ex parte Bradley , 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 364 (1868), a writ of mandamus or prohibition should issue where a court has suspended an attorney in excess of the authority its own rules confer, the constitutional deprivation is operative now, rehearing has been denied without findings, and — by operation of sovereign immunity, the 1996 amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Younger abstention, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine — no other court in the United States can grant relief.