Opinion ID: 1292667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal Convictions.

Text: Not only did petitioner steal from clients, his dishonesty in his personal life resulted in several convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. (4) Under sections 6101 and 6102 of the Business and Professions Code, disbarments, and not suspensions, have been the rule rather than the exception in cases of serious crimes involving moral turpitude, the purpose of the statutes being to protect the public, as well as the courts and the legal profession. (See In re Basinger, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1348; In re Ford (1988) 44 Cal.3d 810 [244 Cal. Rptr. 476, 749 P.2d 1331]; see also In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 748 [108 Cal. Rptr. 815, 511 P.2d 1167].) (1c) The crimes of which petitioner was convicted (three counts of grand theft and three counts of forgery) are serious crimes and warrant disbarment. As stated by this court in In re Smith (1967) 67 Cal.2d 460, 462 [62 Cal. Rptr. 615, 432 P.2d 231], the crime of grand theft ... [has] been recognized to involve heinous misconduct for an attorney, and in In re Urias [1966] 65 Cal.2d 258, 262, fn. 5 [53 Cal. Rptr. 881, 418 P.2d 849] ... we noted that `the vast majority of grand theft convictions of attorneys since that date [1955] have resulted in disbarment or resignation with prejudice.' (67 Cal.2d 460, 462-463.)