The University of the District of Columbia Law ... - UDC Law Review

WHEN LA WYERS BREAK THE LA W 19Possession for sale of a controlled yes In re Hawkins, 685 A.2d 753 (D.C.substances 1996)Possession of cocaine with intent to yes In re Mendes, 598 A.2d 168 (D.C.distribute 1991)Possession of heroin yes In re Gates, No. D-32-79 (D.C.1979) (published in appendix to Inre Roberson, 429 A.2d 530 (D.C.1981»Possession of marijuana with intent yes In re Campbell, 572 A.2d 1059to distribute (D.C. 1990)Rape yes In re Phillips, 452 A.2d 345 (D.C.1982)Receiving a bribe yes In re Glover-Towne, 626 A.2d 1387Receiving a gratuityn0 60 In re Campbell, 522 A.2d 892 (D.C.(D.C. 1993)Refusal of Congressional witness ton0 61 District of Columbia v. Kleindienst,. 1987)testify or produce papers 345 A.2d 146 (D.C. 1975)(misdemeanor)Sale of a controlled substance yes In re Valentin, 710 A.2d 879 (D.C.1998) (interpreting New Yorkstatute)Sodomy yes In re Phillips, 452 A.2d 345 (D.C.1982)Soliciting a bribe yes In re Glover-Towne, 626 A.2d 1387(D.C. 1993)Taking indecent liberties with a child yes In re Sharp, 674 A.2d 899 (D.C.by a person in a custodial or 1996)supervisory relationshipTaking property without a rightn0 62In re Kent, 467 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983)Tax evasion no In re Shorter, 570 A.2d 760 (D.C.1990)Theft (felony) yes In re ~iley, 666 A.2d 68 (D.C.1995)Theft by deception yes In re Youmans, 617 A.2d 534 (D.C.1993)Theft by failure to make required yes In re Hopmgxer, 625 A.2d 290disposition of property received (D.C. 1993)Theft of government property in yes In re Milton, 642 A.2d 839 (D.C.excess of $1,000 1994)60 The Court of Appeals drew a distinction between gratuities accepted by a judge andgratuities accepted by members of the executive and legislative branches. The Court specifically leftopen the question of moral turpitude for executive and legislative employees. The Court found moralturpitude on the facts because the lawyer-criminal was a judge.61 This was the implicit holding of Kleindienst, as noted by Judge Ferren in his concurrence inColson. See Colson, 412 A.2d at 1181 n.4.62 Implied by the Court of Appeals' analysis under the former Disciplinary Rules, not D.C.Code § 11-2503(a). The Court held, by implication, that Kent's offense did not involve moralturpitude.63 See also In re Taylor, 765 A.2d 546 (D.C. 2001); In re Cohen, 742 A.2d 896 (D.C. 1999).64 Id.