484.240. Removal or suspension without trial. — If the charge allege a conviction for any criminal offense involving moral turpitude, the court shall, on production of the record of such conviction, remove the attorney so convicted or suspend such attorney from practice for a limited time, according to the nature of the offense, as the court may deem just, and without further trial. If the attorney be acquitted or discharged upon his trial, or if he be charged under subdivision (1), (2) or (3) of section 484.190, and appears at the time fixed by court and denies the charges preferred against him, or having been notified as required by section 484.210 or 484.220, fails to appear, the court shall forthwith hear the evidence offered in support of said charge and the evidence offered by the accused, and shall determine the matter without delay. And if the court finds that the charge has been sustained, or if the accused shall admit that he is guilty, the court shall remove him from practice or shall suspend him for a limited period, according to the nature of the offense and as the court may deem just and proper.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1953–1985 · leading case:
In re Frick, 694 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. 1985).
In re Frick, 694 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. 1985).
· cites it 4× “20 and § 484.240, RSMo 1978, authorize the automatic removal or suspension of an attorney upon the mere showing of a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.”
In re Burrus, 258 S.W.2d 625 (Mo. 1953).
· cites it 3× “We think it quite clear and, accordingly, hold that his intentional failure to make returns as the law required constituted conduct involving moral turpitude within the meaning of both the statute, § 484.240 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and our Rule 4.”
In re MacLeod, 479 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. 1972).
· cites it 4× “er of the court, respondent, in May, 1971, surrendered to serve and is now serving his sentence at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri; (7) that the crime for which respondent was convicted involves moral turpitude and he should, therefore, be…”
In re Moon, 310 S.W.2d 935 (Mo. 1958).
· cites it 3× “The case was orally argued before the court en banc at the January Session, 1958. In the first point briefed, respondent insists that a conviction for failing to file a Federal income tax return is not an offense involving moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 484.”
In re Lurkins, 374 S.W.2d 67 (Mo. 1964).
· cites it 2× “But regardless of what other jurisdictions may hold, it is now well settled in this state that willfully and knowingly failing to make a federal income tax return is an offense involving moral turpitude within the purview of state statutes and the rules of this court authorizing…”
State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Fitzgerald, 85 N.W.2d 323 (Neb. 1957).
“As stated in In re Burrus, supra: “We think it quite clear and, accordingly, hold that his intentional failure to make returns as the law required constituted conduct involving moral turpitude within the meaning of both the statute, § 484.240 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and our Rule 4.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.