State Bd. of Law Examiners v. Holland, 4055
| Decision Date | 03 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 4055,4055 |
| Citation | 494 P.2d 196 |
| Parties | STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Complainant, v. William C. HOLLAND, Respondent. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Clarence A. Brimmer, Atty. Gen., for complainant.
Burgess, Kennedy & Davis, and Henry A. Burgess, Sheridan, for respondent.
Before McINTYRE, C. J., and PARKER, McEWAN and GUTHRIE, JJ.
Proceedings were instituted on August 24, 1971, under § 33-54, W.S.1957, and Rule 22, Rules of the Supreme Court, for the discipline of William C. Holland (an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts in the State of Wyoming) by reason of alleged unprofessional conduct constituting legal cause for his suspension, revocation of his license, disbarment, or subjection to other discipline. Specifically, the complaint alleged that (1) he was convicted on a plea of nolo contendere (no contest) in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming of a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 7203, willfully and knowingly failing to make an income tax return for the calendar years 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1967, sentence as to imprisonment being suspended and the defendant being fined and placed on probation for one year, and (2) the conviction involved moral turpitude.
When the complaint came on for hearing before the three district judges convened for that purpose, the attorney general introduced evidence of the nolo contendere plea and conviction together with testimony of a member of the Board of Law Examiners that he had been ordered by the board to draft necessary pleadings for the discipline, which had been thereafter instituted by the unanimous consent of that body. The attorney general then rested and Mr. Holland did likewise, introducing no evidence.
The district judges issued findings, reflecting the procedures that had been taken, stated that respondent had been duly convicted of a crime as alleged, that the evidence further showed respondent had failed to perform his duties as an attorney under his oath to uphold and obey a law of the United States of major importance, and that the conviction of willful and intentional conduct involves moral turpitude and constitutes misconduct which is a gross violation of the professional and ethical legal requirements of a member of the Wyoming State Bar. The recommendation of the judges was that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Wyoming for a period of five years.
Respondent here objects to the findings and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Walman
...409 U.S. 979, 93 S.Ct. 312, 34 L.Ed.2d 243 (1972); In re Kline, 156 Mont. 177, 477 P.2d 881, 882 (1970); State Bd. of Law Examiners v. Holland, 494 P.2d 196, 197 (Wyo.1972), a distinction which, as we have suggested, even the federal courts make. Most courts, however, hold that failure to f......
-
Nicholson, Matter of
...167 Neb. 247, 92 N.W.2d 546 (1958); Re Walker, 240 Or. 65, 399 P.2d 1015 (1965) (Per specific facts of case); State Board of Law Examiners v. Holland, 494 P.2d 196 (1972 Wyo.) (failure to file for four years); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Prear, 175 Ohio St. 543, 26 Ohio Op.2d 220, 196 N.E.2d 773 (1......
-
Jordan, In re
...528 A.2d 1307; In re Privette (1978), 92 N.M. 32, 582 P.2d 804; In re Haws (1990), 310 Or. 741, 801 P.2d 818; State Board of Law Examiners v. Holland (Wyo.1972), 494 P.2d 196.) Our ultimate objective in attorney discipline is not to be harsh or to punish the respondent, but to impose a sanc......
-
Board of Law Examiners of State v. Stevens
...as a crime of moral turpitude in disbarment proceedings, In re Pohlman, 248 N.W.2d 833, 835 (N.D.1976); State Bd. of Law Exam. v. Holland, 494 P.2d 196, 197 (Wyo.1972); In re McKechnie, 214 Or. 531, 330 P.2d 727, 728 (1958); Attorney Grievance Comm. v. Barnes, 286 Md. 474, 408 A.2d 719, 723......