In re Hernandez

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Hernandez

683 A.2d 764, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 209, 1996 WL 581863

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 10, 1996

DocketNo. 95-BG-1185

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 A.2d 764, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 209, 1996 WL 581863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hernandez-dc-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack