Legal Opinion
In Re Kerr
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 7, 1992No. 89-SP-1254PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TERRY, Associate Judge:
This case represents the latest of our continuing efforts to define the term “moral turpitude” as it applies to attorney misconduct. Respondent, an attorney, was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (1988), which makes it a crime to file a false tax return “[w]illfully ... under the penalties of perjury.” We must decide whether that crime involves moral turpitude per se. The Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) argues that it does not; Bar Counsel, however, maintains that it does. We conclude that the Board’s reasoning is more consistent with our…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Schmuck v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- In Re HutchinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- Matter of ColsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- United States v. S. Mohammad MarashiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Matter of ShorterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In Re AbramsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- In re Harry TunDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2018
- In Re SneedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- In Re McBrideDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re TidwellDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.