In law school, our teachers never get tired reminding us not to ever cross swords with the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional ethics. In this case, Eala’s indiscretion (pursuing an amorous relationship with a married woman while he himself was married) irked the High Court so much as it found him to have shown “disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law” (marriage) and “betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer”, that it decreed his disbarment.
I think it was too harsh a punishment for Eala, but I surmise the Supreme Court wanted to impart a strong statement. The institution of marriage is now under attack and it is becoming a widespread perception that lawyers are the primary advocates of its dissolution by virtue of annulments. With this decision, the Court seems to reiterate that it’s one thing for lawyers to have the power to facilitate the breakdown of troubled marriages within the bounds defined by law, it’s another to show utter disregard to the sanctity of one by trampling on it while it still exists.