Court Opinion

ID: 9549082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:12:58.000486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:48.751224
License: Public Domain

STEWART, Justice
(concurring):
I agree that the order of disbarment in this case should be sustained. I do not agree, however, that a licensed attorney should be automatically disbarred for conviction of any felony, as Rule 32 of the Rules of Integration and Management of the Utah State Bar appears to require. If Rule 32 were limited to convictions of felonies which are malum in se, automatic disbarment would be justified. However, we live in a day when the statutes of the United States and the State of Utah create numerous crimes which are punishable as felonies even though they are only malum prohibitum and do not involve moral turpitude. As to such crimes, it seems to me that Bar sanctions should be applied on a case-by-case basis so that the nature of the crime and the degree of culpability of the attorney are considered in determining the severity of the sanction imposed. I do not mean to say that no sanction should be imposed when an attorney commits a crime that is only malum prohibitum, but suspension for a given period, or some other remedy, may be more proportionate to the conduct than automatic'disbarment.
*1217In the instant case I agree that conviction of two felony counts of theft by deception is clearly an adequate ground for disbarment.
ZIMMERMAN, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of STEWART, J.