ASHINGTON, Oct. 20 — The Supreme Court sidestepped a chance on Monday to define the benefits of a presidential pardon. The justices refused to hear an appeal by a former prominent member of the bar here who argued that because his bribery conviction automatically led to his disbarment in 1983, his pardon by President Bill Clinton should also lead automatically to reinstatement.

The appeal, by William A. Borders Jr., had attracted considerable attention and raised the prospect of the first Supreme Court ruling in modern times to address the consequences of a presidential pardon. The leading case on the issue dates from 1866, when a former Confederate official argued successfully that his presidential pardon meant that he could resume his status as a member of the Supreme Court bar without taking the loyalty oath required of former Confederates.

The court ruled in that case, Ex parte Garland, that a pardon "blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence."

Nonetheless, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected the reinstatement request last year, ruling that although under district law disbarment was mandatory after conviction for an offense involving '`moral turpitude," reinstatement was up to the court's discretion.

The decision invited Mr. Borders to use the normal process of applying for reinstatement and said the pardon would be one factor for the court to consider. He had twice applied unsuccessfully for reinstatement before the pardon, which Mr. Clinton gave on his last day in office in 2001.

Last April, a year after a three-judge panel rejected Mr. Borders's petition, the appeals court voted, 4 to 3, to refuse to reconsider the ruling. Two of the nine judges recused themselves for unspecified reasons.

Mr. Borders, 64, is a former president of the National Bar Association, the leading organization of black lawyers. He was convicted of soliciting bribes from two defendants to influence their sentencings before a federal district judge, Alcee L. Hastings. Judge Hastings was also charged in the scheme. He was acquitted of the criminal charges, but was impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted and removed from his judgeship by the Senate. He is a representative in the House from Florida.

In his Supreme Court appeal, Borders v. District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel, No. 03-246, Mr. Borders was represented by Charles J. Ogletree Jr., the well-known specialist in criminal law at the Harvard Law School, and by Kenneth W. Starr, former solicitor general and independent counsel. Their brief said the principle established by Supreme Court precedents was that "a presidential pardon nullifies not only the pardoned conviction itself, but also any disabilities that attach as a result of the conviction."

Urging the justices not to hear the case, Joyce E. Peters, the chief disciplinary official for the District of Columbia bar, said, "Character is unquestionably a necessary qualification for membership in the bar."

Even if Mr. Borders had never been criminally convicted, his behavior "would have disqualified him from the practice of law," Ms. Peters said. "The fact that he has been convicted and pardoned does not make him any more eligible for membership in the bar."