IN RE SEAN PATRICK GJERDE
This text of IN RE SEAN PATRICK GJERDE (IN RE SEAN PATRICK GJERDE) 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.
Opinion
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 13-BG-270
IN RE SEAN PATRICK GJERDE, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 479588)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN-115-13)
(Submitted May 14, 2015 Decided May 14, 2015)
Before FISHER and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM: On December 18, 2012, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California, respondent Sean Patrick Gjerde pleaded guilty to
the felony offense of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and to make false statements
in mortgage applications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341, and 1014. He
was sentenced to imprisonment on September 24, 2013. “[A] valid guilty plea acts
as a conviction of the crime charged, as well as an admission of all the material
facts alleged by the government.” In re Untalan, 619 A.2d 978, 981 (D.C. 1993);
see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10 (f). 2
After being notified of respondent’s guilty plea, we suspended him pursuant
to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10 (c), and directed the Board on Professional Responsibility
(“Board”) to institute a formal proceeding to determine the nature of the offense
and whether it involves moral turpitude within the meaning of D.C. Code § 11-
2503 (a) (2012 Repl.). The Board has filed a report recommending that respondent
be disbarred pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503 (a) (disbarment upon conviction of
crime involving moral turpitude). Respondent has not filed a brief in opposition.
“Disbarment for conviction of an offense reached by § 11-2503(a) – i.e.,
involving moral turpitude – is mandatory.” In re Patterson, 833 A.2d 493, 493
(D.C. 2003) (citing In re Spiridon, 755 A.2d 463, 466 (D.C. 2000)). Moreover, if
an offense “manifestly involve[s] moral turpitude by virtue of [its] underlying
elements,” disbarment is mandatory without inquiry into the specific conduct that
led to the conviction. In re Colson, 412 A.2d 1160, 1164 (D.C. 1979) (en banc).
The crime of conspiracy to commit mail fraud is a crime of moral turpitude per se.
In re Allison, 990 A.2d 467, 468 (D.C. 2010); In re Schainker, 871 A.2d 1206,
1206 (D.C. 2005). Respondent’s disbarment is, therefore, mandatory under
D.C. Code § 11-2503 (a). 3
Accordingly, we order that respondent Sean Patrick Gjerde be disbarred
from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective immediately, and
that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice before
this court. For the purposes of reinstatement, the period of disbarment shall not be
deemed to commence until respondent files an affidavit that conforms to the
requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
IN RE SEAN PATRICK GJERDE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sean-patrick-gjerde-dc-2015.