and Edwards v. Born, Inc., 792 stent in its position that the inquiry provision is hortatory, as indicated by the Executive Director’s first letter stating the contrary. The State is also inconsistent in its interpretation of the “should refrain” language in its briefs, repeatedly characterizing identical language in the harassment provision of the Act as a mandatory prohibition against unnecessary harassment, State’s Br. at 1, 6, 18, 27, 35 n.8, 39, and describing the inquiry provision itself as “proscribing] ... inquiries,” id. at 11, and “prohibiting] conduct: health care providers must not interrogate patients about firearms ... if it is not relevant to a patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others,” id. at 39 (emphasis added). But cf. Wilson, 132 F.3d at 1428-29 (<HOLDING>). Neither is it controlling that — as the State
holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present holding disbarred attorneys lacked standing to challenge state bar rules that limit the ways in which disbarred attorneys can represent themselves to the public or have contact with clients where the state bar had repeatedly and consistently taken the position that the challenged rules had no application to the types of scenarios the disbarred attorneys have posed holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services holding that the district court could properly deny attorneys readmission on the ground that he had not been readmitted to the bar of the state of new york holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar