In re Juliano

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Juliano

912 A.2d 553, 2006 D.C. App. LEXIS 636, 2006 WL 3509466

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 7, 2006

DocketNo. 03-BG-287

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 912 A.2d 553 (In re Juliano) 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 Juliano, 912 A.2d 553, 2006 D.C. App. LEXIS 636, 2006 WL 3509466 (D.C. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On April 18, 2002, respondent Richard A. Juliano entered a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346 and 2 (1994), and was sentenced on October 10, 2006 to four years of probation and payment of a $10,000 fine. See United States v. Juliano, Case No. 02-CR-310-3; judgment and sentencing order dated October 10, 2006. After Bar Counsel reported respondent’s convictions to this court, we temporarily suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10(c). We directed the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) to institute a formal proceeding to determine the nature of the final discipline to be imposed and, specifically, to decide whether respondent’s crimes involved moral turpitude. The Board has concluded that respondent’s convictions involve moral turpitude and recommends disbarment pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (2001).

Bar Counsel takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation. Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation. We therefore accept the Board’s findings and adopt its recommendation. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). It is well settled that mail fraud is a crime of moral turpitude per se. See, e.g., In re Firestone, 824 A.2d 47 (D.C.2003); In re Lamb, 810 A.2d 413 (D.C.2003); In re Duker, 723 A.2d 410 (D.C.1999); In re Ferber, 703 A.2d 142 (D.C.1997); In re Juron, 649 A.2d 836 (D.C.1994). D.C.Code § 11-2503(a) (2001) mandates disbarment when a bar member is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude and a certified copy of the conviction is presented to the court. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Richard A. Juliano is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia as of the date of this order. We note that respondent filed the [554]*554affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) on April 29, 2003.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

On April 18, 2002, respondent Richard A. Juliano entered a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346 and 2 (1994), and was sentenced on October 10, 2006 to four years of probation and payment of a $10,000 fine. See United States v. Juliano, Case No. 02-CR-310-3; judgment and sentencing order dated October 10, 2006. After Bar Counsel reported respondent’s convictions to this court, we temporarily suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10(c). We directed the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) to institute a formal proceeding to determine the nature of the final discipline to be imposed and, specifically, to decide whether respondent’s crimes involved moral turpitude. The Board has concluded that respondent’s convictions involve moral turpitude and recommends disbarment pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (2001).

Bar Counsel takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation. Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation. We therefore accept the Board’s findings and adopt its recommendation. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). It is well settled that mail fraud is a crime of moral turpitude per se. See, e.g., In re Firestone, 824 A.2d 47 (D.C.2003); In re Lamb, 810 A.2d 413 (D.C.2003); In re Duker, 723 A.2d 410 (D.C.1999); In re Ferber, 703 A.2d 142 (D.C.1997); In re Juron, 649 A.2d 836 (D.C.1994). D.C.Code § 11-2503(a) (2001) mandates disbarment when a bar member is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude and a certified copy of the conviction is presented to the court. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Richard A. Juliano is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia as of the date of this order. We note that respondent filed the [554]*554affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) on April 29, 2003.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

912 A.2d 553, 2006 D.C. App. LEXIS 636, 2006 WL 3509466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-juliano-dc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack