In re Lesansky

Good Law
104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 409·2001 Cal. LEXIS 1160·2001 Daily Journal DAR 2177·25 Cal. 4th 11·17 P.3d 764
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 1, 2001No. S079499California2,643 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kennard, J.

Since January 1, 1997, the Legislature has provided for summary disbarment of an attorney convicted of a felony involving moral *13 turpitude. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6102, subd. (c); Stats. 1996, ch. 1104, § 6.) In this attorney discipline matter, we consider whether an attorney may be summarily disbarred as a result of his felony conviction for attempting to commit a form of child molestation when the crime did not involve a client and did not occur in the practice of law. Because the practice of law requires good moral character, and because petitioner’s felony conviction involves moral turpitude, and thus demonstrates his unfitness for the legal profession, we conclude that summary disbarment is authorized and warranted.

I

In 1985, California admitted petitioner Stuart K. Lesansky to the practice of law. In January 1998, petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere in Los Angeles Superior Court to one count of an attempted lewd act on “a child of 14 or 15 years” when petitioner was “at least 10 years older than the child.” (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 288, subd. (c)(1).) In March 1998, the record of conviction was sent to the State Bar Court, which placed petitioner on interim…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.