Hallinan, In re

• Decision Date: 19 February 1957
• Citation: 307 P.2d 1,48 Cal.2d 52
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: In re Vincent W. HALLINAN, Member of The State Bar of California. S. F. 19053.

Page 1

307 P.2d 1

48 Cal.2d 52

In re Vincent W. HALLINAN, Member of The State Bar of California.

S. F. 19053.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Feb. 19, 1957.

James C. Purcell and Benjamin Dreyfus, San Francisco, for petitioner.

Leo M. Cook, John E. Nelson, Ukiah, and Garrett H. Elmore, San Francisco, for respondent the State Bar.

PER CURIAM.

Vincent W. Hallinan was convicted of violating section 145, subdivision (b), of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 145, subd. (b), by 'wilfully and knowingly filing false and fraudulent income tax returns.' He did not appeal, and the time for appeal having elapsed, The State Bar filed with this court a certified copy of the indictment and judgment of conviction and asked that he be disciplined.

After a hearing before this court the matter was referred to the Board of Governors of The State Bar for hearing and recommendation on the question whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense of which he was convicted involved moral turpitude. In re Hallinan, 43 Cal.2d 243, 272 P.2d 768.

After a hearing before a subcommittee of the Board of Governors the matter was reviewed by the Board of Governors of The State Bar, who (a) found that the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense of which petitioner was convicted involved moral turpitude, and (b) recommended his suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years.

These two questions are presented for our determination:

First: Does the evidence sustain the finding of the Board of Governors that the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense of which petitioner was convicted involve moral turpitude?

Yes. The following rules are pertinent here:

(1) The burden is upon petitioner seeking a review of the Board of Bar Governors' recommendation to show that the findings are not supported by the evidence or that their recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. Tonini v. State Bar, 46 Cal.2d 491(2), 297 P.2d 1.

(2) Criminal acts involving intentional dishonesty for the purpose of personal gain are acts involving moral turpitude. In re Hallinan, 43 Cal.2d at page 247(4), 272 P.2d 468, supra.

An examination of the record in accordance with the above rules discloses ample evidence that petitioner intentionally and for the purpose of personal gain filed false income tax returns for the years 1947 to 1950 inclusive.

The evidence discloses that petitioner was a member of a law firm consisting of himself, James M. MacInnis and Archer Zamloch during the years 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950; that all professional income was not deposited in the firm account but that the three sometimes deposited funds in individual private accounts from which checks to the others were drawn and that sometimes fees were received and divided in cash. On other occasions fees received would be used to purchase cashier's checks and after being cashed the proceeds would be divided among the partners. No report of fees received in this manner by petitioner was ever made to the federal government.

The record discloses that petitioner during the period mentioned reported as his income from the partnership the sum of $15,647.79, when in fact he had received an additional sum amounting to $60,197.95, none of which was ever shown in any of his returns to the federal government as income received by him from the practice of law.

The evidence showed a consistent failure of petitioner to report his income and a planned pattern of taking fees in cash with an intent not to report receipt of these fees as required by the Internal Revenue Act. It appeared that petitioner, over a period of at least four years, had intentionally pursued a course of conduct whereby he refused to report the total amount of his income from the practice of law to the federal government and endeavored, by failing to keep appropriate records and other practices, to prevent the federal government from ascertaining the true amount of his professional income.

Evidence was introduced to show that petitioner had received 'side fees' for 1947 as high as $12,260.02 which were not reported as income.

No useful purpose would be served by setting forth in detail the voluminous evidence in the record. Suffice it to recite that for the year 1947 petitioner filed an income tax return in which he showed the receipt of $4,784.54 as '1/4 of wife's net income for services as per agreement' under Schedule E 'Income from partnerships, estates and trusts, and other sources'; reported a loss of $3,258.47 as 'loss on stock market speculation' under Schedule D 'Gains and losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets, etc.,' without filling out the required additional Schedule D for detail. Under Schedule C 'Profit (or loss) from business or profession,' the return reported petitioner was a 'lawyer' and his business address as '465 California St., San Francisco.' The space for 'business name' was left blank. There was no reference to the firm name of 'Hallinan, MacInnis & Zamloch' nor the...