In re Hackney

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Hackney

777 A.2d 786, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 205, 2001 WL 776594

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 2001

DocketNo. 99-BG-1490

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 777 A.2d 786 (In re Hackney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hackney, 777 A.2d 786, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 205, 2001 WL 776594 (D.C. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On June 25, 1999, respondent James Y. Hackney was convicted in federal court of four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The indictment indicates that respondent knowingly defrauded investors by urging them to invest in certain ventures in South Africa, collecting monies for that purpose, and then spending the monies on himself rather than investing them.

On December 13,1999, this court temporarily suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10(c). We directed the Board on Professional Responsibility to institute a formal proceeding to determine the nature of the final discipline to be imposed and, specifically, to decide whether respondent’s crime involved moral turpitude. The Board has now filed a report and recommendation. The Board finds that respondent’s conviction involves moral turpitude per se, and recommends disbarment pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (1995). The Board’s recommendation is unopposed.

We have previously held that wire fraud is a crime of moral turpitude per se. See, e.g., In re Ferber, 703 A.2d 142 (D.C.1997); In re Chuang, 575 A.2d 725 (D.C.1990). D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) thus mandates respondent’s disbarment. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that James V. Hackney is disbarred, pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-2503(a) from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. This disbarment is effective from January 17, 2001, the date on which respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

On June 25, 1999, respondent James Y. Hackney was convicted in federal court of four counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The indictment indicates that respondent knowingly defrauded investors by urging them to invest in certain ventures in South Africa, collecting monies for that purpose, and then spending the monies on himself rather than investing them.

On December 13,1999, this court temporarily suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10(c). We directed the Board on Professional Responsibility to institute a formal proceeding to determine the nature of the final discipline to be imposed and, specifically, to decide whether respondent’s crime involved moral turpitude. The Board has now filed a report and recommendation. The Board finds that respondent’s conviction involves moral turpitude per se, and recommends disbarment pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (1995). The Board’s recommendation is unopposed.

We have previously held that wire fraud is a crime of moral turpitude per se. See, e.g., In re Ferber, 703 A.2d 142 (D.C.1997); In re Chuang, 575 A.2d 725 (D.C.1990). D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) thus mandates respondent’s disbarment. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that James V. Hackney is disbarred, pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-2503(a) from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. This disbarment is effective from January 17, 2001, the date on which respondent filed an affidavit pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 A.2d 786, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 205, 2001 WL 776594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hackney-dc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack