Whether the Younger abstention doctrine applies to a challenge against California State Bar rules which allow that agency to place licensees with physical or mental disabilities on involuntary inactive status without requiring that an evidentiary hearing ever be afforded

Questions Presented This case asks whether the Younger abstention doctrine applies to a challenge against California State Bar rules which allow that agency to place licensees with physical or mental disabilities on involuntary inactive status without requiring that an evidentiary hearing ever be afforded. California Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 6007(b) (3), as promulgated by the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California (Rules), 5.190-5.212, allow the State Bar to move licensees with : disabilities to involuntary inactive status without affording a predeprivation evidentiary hearing on the merits nor a postdeprivation evidentiary hearing to determine whether the initial move to disability inactive status was warranted. California Business & Professions Code § 6053 has been used by State Bar Court Judges, i.e., administrative law judges, to order licensees subject to § 6007(b) (3) proceedings to undergo physical and mental examinations. Lack of compliance may be used as evidence in determining whether the attorney should be moved to involuntary inactive status pursuant to BPC § 6007(b) (3), despite no hearing on the merits having been afforded. As a prerequisite to being moved back to active status, an affected licensee must sign a release allowing the Bar to copy medical and hospital records related to the licensee’s alleged disability and the licensee’s current medical state. Even then, the State Bar rules still do not require that a hearing on the merits ever be afforded. 2 The following questions are presented: 1. Is Younger abstention appropriate to defer to purely . administrative proceedings occurring in State Bar Court, and where the Bar proceedings do not afford licensees a hearing on the merits before being placed on involuntary inactive status because of alleged disability? 2. Is Younger abstention appropriate the state court proceeding is purely administrative in character versus disciplinary and where the proceeding is akin to a dispute between labor union and member or employer and employee, versus a proceeding between and : defendant and the state? : 3