Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct v. Jones, 73-121
| Decision Date | 20 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-121,73-121 |
| Citation | 256 Ark. 1106,509 S.W.2d 294 |
| Parties | . Guy Hamilton JONES, Sr., Respondent. Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
The petition for disbarment of respondent, Guy Hamilton Jones (Sr.) is predicated solely upon Rule XI of the Rules Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law. This rule requires that, whenever any member of the bar of this court shall have been disbarred or suspended by judgment of any federal court held within this state, a like order be entered by this court, unless good cause for other action be shown. It appears that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas struck the name of respondent from the list of attorneys authorized to practice in that court. Its action was based upon its Rule 1(f) requiring that any member of the bar of that court who was been convicted of a felony be ipso facto disbarred from practicing in that court.
In attempting to show good cause for other action, respondent has adduced evidence based upon the premise that he is not guilty of the four crimes, or counts, which afforded the basis for the action of the federal district court, in spite of the jury verdict finding him guilty. Another premise upon which much testimony is based is that the conviction was politically motivated. For the purposes of this proceeding we must, and do, accept the jury verdict at face value. At the same time, we reject all contentions that one's guilt of wilfully and knowingly attempting to evade payment of taxes by filing false and fraudulent tax returns and of wilfully filing income tax returns he did not believe to be true in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7201 and § 7206 does not involve moral turpitude. We also reject any suggestion that misconduct of an attorney which is not connected with his professional activities or does not impair his ability to represent clients affords no basis for disciplinary action.
On the other hand, we find that respondent has produced sufficient evidence through testimony of witnesses of excellent stature from all walks of life upon which we feel justified in finding there is good cause for action other than a complete and permanent disbarment. It is clear from the evidence that petitioner, now 63 years of age, has practiced law for 38 years, during which he has manifested a very high regard for the law, the legal profession, the courts and the judiciary and has ably...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Mandel
...(1974); Ariz.S.C.R. 29(c); Matter of Goldman, 124 Ariz. 105, 602 P.2d 486 (1979); Ark.S.C.R.Prof.Conduct Attns. X; Matter of Jones, 256 Ark. 1106, 509 S.W.2d 294 (1974); Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 6101 (West 1974); In re Duggan, 17 Cal.3d 416, 551 P.2d 19, 130 Cal.Rptr. 715 (1976); Colo.R.P.Law......
-
Humphreys, Matter of
...of course."); Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Carter, 40 Ohio St.2d 43, 319 N.E.2d 358 (1974) (per curiam); Supreme Court Comm. on Professional Conduct v. Jones, 256 Ark. 1106, 509 S.W.2d 294, 295 (1974) ("[W]e reject all contentions that one's guilt of willfully and knowingly attempting to evade or de......
-
Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Boettner
...Revenue Code, (26 U.S.C., Section 7201), is a conviction involving moral turpitude."4 See, e.g., Supreme Court Comm. on Professional Conduct v. Jones, 256 Ark. 1106, 509 S.W.2d 294 (1974); Florida Bar v. Ryan, 352 So.2d 1174 (Fla.1977); In re Walker, 67 Ill.2d 48, 7 Ill.Dec. 89, 364 N.E.2d ......
-
Nicholson, Matter of
...& Conduct of Iowa State Bar Assn. v. Bromwell, Iowa, 221 N.W.2d 777 (1974); Matter of Fosaaen, N.D., 234 N.W.2d 867; Committee v. Jones, 256 Ark. 1106, 509 S.W.2d 294 (1974). Other states have reached the opposite conclusion, although in many of these the reasons for doing so are varied: Co......