Boyd, In re
| Citation | 307 P.2d 625,48 Cal.2d 69 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1957 |
| Parties | In re Arther Elliott BOYD, Jr., on disbarment. L. A. 24347. |
Arthur Elliott Boyd, Jr., in pro. per., Max Solomon and John W. Preston, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Carrett H. Elmore, San Francisco, and John G. Thorpe, Los Angeles, for respondent.
This is a proceeding predicated on an order of this court directing petitioner, an attorney at law, to show cause why he should not be disciplined pursuant to the provisions of action 6101 of the Business and Professions Code, and his return thereto.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to violating subdivision 5 of section 647 of the Penal Code (vagrancy). It is there provided, among other things, that every lewd or dissolute person is a vagrant and punishable as for a misdemeanor. The record discloses that on June 28, 1953, petitioner committed an act prohibited by this section of the Penal Code. Section 6101 of the Business and Professions Code provides that conviction of a felony or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude, constitutes a cause for discipline of an attorney at law.
This is the sole question for us to determine: Did the acts constituting the offense to which petitioner pleaded guilty involve moral turpitude?
Yes. Moral turpitude has been defined as: 'An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.' 2 Bouv., Law Dict., Rawle's Third Revision, 8th ed. 1914, p. 2247; see also Ballentine, Law Dictionary (1948), p. 832; Black, Law Dictionary (4th Ed. 1951), p. 1160; Marsh v. State Bar of California, 210 Cal. 303, 307(2), 291 P. 583.
No citation of authority or argument is needed to support the conclusion that the conduct of petitioner fell within the purview of the above definition. His offense was one of depravity, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man, and was therefore an offense involving moral turpitude. The act was committed in a public place. Without further recitation of the facts, it is enough to say that such conduct is unworthy of a member of the legal profession.
This court in In re Phillips, 17 Cal.2d 55, 109 P.2d 344, 132 A.L.R. 644, sustained the disbarment of an attorney pursuant to section 6102 of the Business and Professions Code where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. State Board of Education
...885; Jacobs v. State Bar (1933) 219 Cal. 59, 64, 25 P.2d 401; Lantz v. State Bar (1931) 212 Cal. 213, 218, 298 P. 497.) In In re Boyd (1957) 48 Cal.2d 69, 307 P.2d 625, this court ordered the suspension from the practice of law of an attorney convicted on his plea of guilty of a violation o......
-
People v. Castro, Cr. 23605
...12 Cal.2d 93, 97 ; see also Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners (1968) 68 Cal.2d 67, 73 [64 Cal.Rptr. 785, 435 P.2d 553]; In re Boyd (1957) 48 Cal.2d 69, 70 .)" ( In re Higbie, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 569, 99 Cal.Rptr. 865, 493 P.2d "Moral turpitude has also been described as any crime or mis......
-
Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners of State Bar
...fellow men or to society in general, contrary, to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man' (In re Boyd, 48 Cal.2d 69, 70, 307 P.2d 625; In re Craig, 12 Cal.2d 93, 97, 82 P.2d 442).' (In re Alkow, supra, 64 A.C. 905, at pp. 907--908, 51 Cal.Rptr. 912, at p. 914,......
-
Fahey, In re
...82 P.2d 442, 444; see also Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners (1968) 68 Cal.2d 67, 73, 64 Cal.Rptr. 785, 435 P.2d 553; In re Boyd (1957) 48 Cal.2d 69, 70, 307 P.2d 625.) "'The concept of moral turpitude depends upon the state of public morals, and may vary according to the community or the......