Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

01/31/92 MATTER JACK B. SOLERWITZ RESPONDENT. A

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS


January 31, 1992

IN THE MATTER OF: JACK B. SOLERWITZ, RESPONDENT. A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility.

Before Ferren, Steadman, and King, Associate Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

PER CURIAM: By two indictments in Nassau County, New York, respondent was charged with various crimes. On April 2, 1990, respondent entered guilty pleas to two counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree in violation of New York Penal Code § 155.50. Upon consideration of a certified copy of the judgment from the County Court of Nassau County, this court suspended respondent from the practice of law in the District of Columbia on August 16, 1990 pursuant to D. C. Bar Rule XI, § 10(c) (1989).

By the same order, we directed the Board on Professional Responsibility to institute a formal proceeding to determine the nature of the final discipline to be imposed; we requested the Board specifically to review the elements of the crime for which respondent was sentenced to determine whether or not the crime involved moral turpitude within the meaning of D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (1989).

The Board on Professional Responsibility has concluded that grand larceny as defined by the State of New York *fn1 is a crime involving moral turpitude per se, requiring disbarrment under In re Colson, 412 A.2d 1160, 1164 (D.C. 1979) (en banc) (once court determines that respondent's crime involves moral turpitude, disbarrment pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) must follow). See In re Boyd, 593 A.2d 183 (D.C. 1991) (attorney convicted in New York of grand larceny disbarred pursuant to § 11-2503(a)). Bar Counsel has indicated agreement with the Board's recommendation, and respondent has filed no objection.

We agree with the Board on Professional Responsibility that disbarrment is required by the statute and by Colson. Accordingly, respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia effective thirty days from the date of this Order.

So ordered.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.