In re Hawk

580 P.2d 291, 21 Cal. 3d 592, 146 Cal. Rptr. 876, 1978 Cal. LEXIS 249
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJune 29, 1978
DocketS.F. No. 23510
StatusPublished

This text of 580 P.2d 291 (In re Hawk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Hawk, 580 P.2d 291, 21 Cal. 3d 592, 146 Cal. Rptr. 876, 1978 Cal. LEXIS 249 (Cal. 1978).

Opinion

Opinion

THE COURT.

Richard E. Hawk, admitted to practice in 1957, was convicted of two counts of wilfully and knowingly failing to file federal income tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7203). We referred the matter to the State Bar for a hearing, report and recommendation on the question whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offenses of which Hawk was convicted involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline and, if so, what discipline should be imposed. Following a hearing, the local committee concluded that Hawk’s conduct did not involve moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline. Upon review, however, the Disciplinary Board determined that while Hawk’s conduct did not involve moral turpitude, it did involve other misconduct warranting discipline. The board then recommended that Hawk be suspended from the practice of law for two months.

This court after reviewing the matter and considering all the facts and circumstances, has concluded that discipline is warranted (see In re Rohan (1978) 21 Cal.3d 195 [145 Cal.Rptr. 855, 578 P.2d 102]) and that the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation should be adopted with the additional requirement that Hawk pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year. (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891 [126 Cal.Rptr. 793, 544 P.2d 929].)

[594]*594It is ordered that Richard E. Hawk be suspended from the practice of law for two months and that he pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year after the effective date of this order. This order is effective 30 days after the filing of this opinion.

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

Related

In Re Rohan
578 P.2d 102 (California Supreme Court, 1978)
Segretti v. State Bar
544 P.2d 929 (California Supreme Court, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
580 P.2d 291, 21 Cal. 3d 592, 146 Cal. Rptr. 876, 1978 Cal. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hawk-cal-1978.