In re Hernandez

683 A.2d 764, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 209, 1996 WL 581863
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided October 10, 1996·No. No. 95-BG-1185·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent be disbarred pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (1995 Repl.), in light of his conviction in the Municipal Court of the State of California, State v. Hernandez, No. 95CF1397 (June 26, 1995), on six counts of forgery, twenty-two counts of knowingly passing checks written on insufficient funds, and six counts of embezzlement in violation of California Penal Code §§ 470(a), 476(a) and 503. We accept the recommendation, which respondent did not contest.

A felony in which intent to defraud is an essential element is inherently a crime of moral turpitude. In re Juron, 649 A.2d 836 (D.C.1994). Embezzlement involves moral turpitude. In re Venable, 641 A.2d 853 (D.C.1993). Since the crimes respondent was convicted of are inherently crimes of moral turpitude, respondent must be disbarred. D.C.Code § ll-2503(a).

Accordingly, respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective immediately. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(f) (1996).

So ordered.

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

In re Hernandez, 683 A.2d 764, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 209, 1996 WL 581863 (D.C. 1996).

683 A.2d 764 (In re Hernandez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Juron
649 A.2d 836 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1994)
In re Venable
641 A.2d 853 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1993)