In Re Harold Samuel Wrobel, Esq., Admitted to the Bar of the Ninth Circuit: December 20, 1985

163 F.3d 609, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 35077, 1998 WL 199877
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 21, 1998
Docket97-80573
StatusUnpublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 163 F.3d 609 (In Re Harold Samuel Wrobel, Esq., Admitted to the Bar of the Ninth Circuit: December 20, 1985) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Harold Samuel Wrobel, Esq., Admitted to the Bar of the Ninth Circuit: December 20, 1985, 163 F.3d 609, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 35077, 1998 WL 199877 (9th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

163 F.3d 609

In re Harold Samuel WROBEL, Esq., Admitted to the Bar of the
Ninth Circuit: December 20, 1985.

No. 97-80573.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 9, 1998.
Decided April 21, 1998.

Before FARRIS, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

Harold Samuel Wrobel has been convicted of a felony, and as a result he has been suspended from the practice of law in the State of California pending further proceedings. See Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 6102(a). After considering his response to our order to show cause and hearing argument, we reject any assertion that Wrobel's suspension is improper because his felony cannot have been one of moral turpitude. We recognize that structuring currency transactions is not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude. See Goldeshtein v. INS, 8 F.3d 645, 648 (9th Cir.1993). That, however, is a far cry from saying that California cannot determine that the "circumstances of ... commission" of the felony by Wrobel did involve moral turpitude. Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 6102(e). Under the circumstances, we agree that an interim suspension is appropriate.

Therefore, we hereby suspend Harold Samuel Wrobel from practice before this court until such time as the Supreme Court of California, or the entity to which it has delegated its authority to act, takes further action. See Fed.R.App.R. 46(b); In re Rosenthal, 854 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1988). When the action of the California Supreme Court, or other appropriate entity, has been brought to the attention of this court, we will take further action regarding Wrobel's practice before us. The panel does not reserve jurisdiction over future proceedings.

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

Related

Wieczorek v. Johnson
C.D. California, 2023
Brown v. Hudson
E.D. California, 2021
Darienzo v. Barretto
D. Hawaii, 2020
Aluisi v. Jorgensen
E.D. California, 2019
California Bank & Trust v. Licursi (In re Licursi)
573 B.R. 786 (C.D. California, 2017)
In re: Azizolah Javahery
Ninth Circuit, 2017
In re: Hai Lecong
Ninth Circuit, 2015
Yaikian v. Yaikian (In re Yaikian)
508 B.R. 175 (S.D. California, 2014)
In re: Mehran Shahverdi
Ninth Circuit, 2013
McCarron v. Andrews (In Re Andrews)
385 B.R. 496 (D. Connecticut, 2008)
Brandstetter v. Derebery (In Re Derebery)
324 B.R. 349 (C.D. California, 2005)
Elrod v. Bowden (In Re Bowden)
326 B.R. 62 (E.D. Virginia, 2005)
Miller v. Snavely (In Re Snavely)
314 B.R. 808 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 F.3d 609, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 35077, 1998 WL 199877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harold-samuel-wrobel-esq-admitted-to-the-bar-ca9-1998.