In Re Disbarment of Leonard L. Sutton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Disbarment of Leonard L. Sutton

5 N.W.2d 396, 213 Minn. 76, 1942 Minn. LEXIS 485

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 17, 1942

DocketNo. 33,148.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 N.W.2d 396 (In Re Disbarment of Leonard L. Sutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Disbarment of Leonard L. Sutton, 5 N.W.2d 396, 213 Minn. 76, 1942 Minn. LEXIS 485 (Mich. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Eespondent was convicted on his plea of nolo contendere of the crime of embezzlement in the United States district court, third division, of Minnesota, and sentence (suspended) for 15 months in a penitentiary imposed and respondent placed on probation for a period of two years.

Mason St. 1927, § 5697(1) (A) makes conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude ground for removal or suspension of an attorney at law by this court and makes the record of conviction conclusive evidence of the crime. In response to an order to show cause why the respondent should not be immediately and forthwith disbarred, he filed an answer in which he sought to allege certain extenuating circumstances which resulted in his embezzlement of the money and ultimately in his federal court conviction.

So long as the conviction stands it cannot be questioned here by such evidence as respondent proposes to offer in defense in this disbarment proceeding. The crime of which he was convicted is a crime involving moral turpitude, and under the circumstances we are not convinced that there are any extenuating circumstances shown which would warrant the appointment of a referee to hear *77 any plea which respondent might make. We do not feel that respondent is entitled to leniency. He is therefore disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys entitled to practice in this state.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Eespondent was convicted on his plea of nolo contendere of the crime of embezzlement in the United States district court, third division, of Minnesota, and sentence (suspended) for 15 months in a penitentiary imposed and respondent placed on probation for a period of two years.

Mason St. 1927, § 5697(1) (A) makes conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude ground for removal or suspension of an attorney at law by this court and makes the record of conviction conclusive evidence of the crime. In response to an order to show cause why the respondent should not be immediately and forthwith disbarred, he filed an answer in which he sought to allege certain extenuating circumstances which resulted in his embezzlement of the money and ultimately in his federal court conviction.

So long as the conviction stands it cannot be questioned here by such evidence as respondent proposes to offer in defense in this disbarment proceeding. The crime of which he was convicted is a crime involving moral turpitude, and under the circumstances we are not convinced that there are any extenuating circumstances shown which would warrant the appointment of a referee to hear *77 any plea which respondent might make. We do not feel that respondent is entitled to leniency. He is therefore disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys entitled to practice in this state.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.W.2d 396, 213 Minn. 76, 1942 Minn. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disbarment-of-leonard-l-sutton-minn-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack