Burrus, In re

Decision Date08 June 1953
Docket NumberNo. 43739,43739
Citation258 S.W.2d 625,364 Mo. 22
PartiesIn re BURRUS.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Charles V. Garnett, Kansas City, for petitioner.

Frank W. Hayes, Jefferson City, for Bar Committee.

PER CURIAM.

Following judgment and sentence rendered upon plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the charge of willfully and knowingly failing to file Federal income tax returns for the years of 1949 and 1950, Harvey B. Burrus, a licensed attorney of Missouri, has voluntarily submitted himself to this court for such disciplinary action as we may deem just.

Section 145(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Sec. 145(a), under which Mr. Burrus was convicted, makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for any person required by law to make a Federal income tax return to willfully fail to make the same. The information to which he pleaded guilty charged in the first court thereof that his cross income for the year 1949 was $13,404, by reason of which he was required by law to make a return thereof on or before March 15, 1950, and that he willfully and knowingly failed so to do. The second count alleged his gross income for the year of 1950 to be $17,460.12, and that he willfully and knowingly failed to make a return thereof on or before March 15, 1951. His plea was entered on April 6, 1953. The judgment and sentence, entered on the same day, committed him to the custody of the Attorney General for imprisionment for a period of ninety days on Count I of the information. On Count II imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for a period of two years. It was further adjudged that he be assessed a fine of $5,00, and he was granted a stay of execution on the sentence of imprisonment until May 4, 1953. On the 8th day of April, 1953, and after obtaining approval of the General Chairman of Bar Cummittees, he, through his counsel, Hon. Charles V. Garnett, filed a petition in this court, which, after reciting the above facts, waived issuance of all process, requested permission to appear voluntarily before the court, and submitted himself to the court 'for the purpose of having this court judicially determine what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken against him * * *.' The cause was thereupon set for hearing before the court en banc, on April 13, 1953. Present at this hearing were petitioner, his counsel, and Hon. Frank W. Hayes, counsel for the Advisory Committee to the General Chariman of Bar Committees. The evidence was heard and the cause duly submitted to the court for determination.

From the evidence adduced, it appears that when income tax returns for the year of 1948--no charge was filed for his failure to make a return for that year--were due, Mr. Burrus' records were incomplete and he was pressed for time. He sought and was granted an extension of time in which to file that return, but eventually failed to file it. His situation thereupon progressively grew more perplexing and resulted, as stated, in his intentional failure to file returns for the years of 1949 and 1950. Finally, while talking to an internal revenue agent about another matter, he related the entire matter to the agent. Until he gave the information to the agent in this manner, the Revenue Department had not taken note of his delinquencies. Since that time, he has actively and willingly cooperated with the Federal agents in an effort to compute the amount of his delinquencies and to discharge the same.

The record is also clear that Burrus has at all times borne an excellent reputation among the bench and bar both in his personal and professional capacities and attainments. No suggestion is made of any prior professional or personal misconduct. His attitude before this court was that of a man who realized the seriousness of his offense and sincerely wanted to make all amends possible.

Our Rule 4.47, governing the conduct of lawyers, provides, among other admonitions, that a lawyer shall not, 'by any misconduct, commit any offense against the laws of Missouri or the United States of America, which amounts to a crime involving acts done by him contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals; * * *.' And, although this is not a proceeding under the statutes of this State regulating the rights and duties of attorneys as found in Chapter 484 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., it should be here noted that Sec. 484.240 of said chapter provides: 'If the charge [against an attorney] allege a conviction for any criminal offense involving moral turpitude, the court shall, on production of the record of such conviction, remove the attorney so convicted or suspend such attorney from practice for a limited time, according to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Hallinan, In re
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1954
    ...the administration of justice". 186 Md. at page 205, 46 A.2d at page 291. The dictum in the Rheb case was relied upon in In re Burrus, Mo.Sup., 1953, 258 S.W.2d 625, 626 where the court found that a violation of section 145(a) involved moral turpitude. The Missouri court, however, examined ......
  • In re Disciplinary Proc. against Vanderveen
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • July 16, 2009
    ...and had a "`corrupt and criminal motive.'" Id. at 564, 327 P.2d 427 (some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Burrus, 364 Mo. 22, 24, 258 S.W.2d 625 (1953) and In re Means, 207 Or. 638, 639, 298 P.2d 983 ¶ 54 The attorney in In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against English, 64 Was......
  • Franklin v. I.N.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 12, 1996
    ...honesty, modesty and good morals."); In re Frick, 694 S.W.2d 473, 479 (Mo.1985) (en banc) (same definition); In re Burrus, 364 Mo. 22, 258 S.W.2d 625, 626 (1953) (en banc) (same definition); In re McNeese, 346 Mo. 425, 142 S.W.2d 33, 33-34 (1940) (en banc) (same definition); In re Wallace, ......
  • Frick, In re, 65934
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 7, 1985
    ...The attorney is entitled to offer evidence bearing on the sanction. Disbarment does not inevitably follow conviction. In re Burrus, 364 Mo. 22, 258 S.W.2d 625 (banc 1953)--one-year suspension for conviction for willful failure to file income tax, although the Court found that the offense in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT