In Brophy v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1941) 46 Cal.App.2d 278, an attorney was the subject of contempt proceedings and also disciplinary proceedings. At the hearing in these proceedings the attorney refused to testify because of the nature of the proceedings, criminal (for contempt) and disciplinary. The commission therefore ordered that he be suspended for 30 days and if he continued to refuse to testify he would be disbarred from practice before the commission. The court in Brophy , in a majority opinion written by then Presiding Justice Peters, held the order purporting to suspend Brophy was invalid because the order to show cause which initiated the proceedings had not been served until after the time it was returnable, and also because the commission lacked jurisdiction to compel Brophy to testify in the proceedings because of their dual nature (i.e., both civil and criminal) in violation of his constitutional rights. By so invalidating the commission's order, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether Labor Code section 4907 was either invalid for uncertainty (the power to discipline for "good cause" being argued as vague) or based upon the rationale "such a general grant of power is void." ( Brophy, supra , at p. 282.)