19

Ellis, Chesebro and Powell have all asked the court to state their crimes were not ones of “moral turpitude”. What is the significance of that expression and why is it so important to them?

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716
Simd
  • 712
  • 6
  • 16
  • 3
    You might want to read the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude). The origin of this is immigration law (in particular, the Immigration and Naturalization Act). – Flydog57 Oct 25 '23 at 14:01
  • 4
    @Flydog57 I read that. But the three who asked for the wording are natural born US citizens as far as I know. – Simd Oct 25 '23 at 14:21
  • 8
    @Simd right in the Wikipedia article: "offenses involving moral turpitude may be grounds to deny or revoke state professional licenses such as teaching credentials, applications for public notary,[5] licenses to practice law,[6] or other licensed professions." – RonJohn Oct 25 '23 at 16:13
  • 3
    @Flydog57 the phrase "moral turpitude" and the concept it represents had existed for at least two centuries before the US started passing immigration law, which was in turn around a century before the INA came into being. – phoog Oct 26 '23 at 03:22

1 Answers1

30

In many states, conviction (or a guilty plea) to a crime of moral turpitude is automatic disbarment. At a minimum, these lawyers would face hearings and their licenses, and livelihoods, would be at risk. Wikipedia.

One's licence would still be at risk if convicted of crimes short of moral turpitude — it just would not be automatic disbarment in those states.

Jen
  • 54,294
  • 5
  • 110
  • 242
Andrew Lazarus
  • 1,432
  • 7
  • 12
  • If you have a felony conviction for a crime that is not one of moral turpitude, would your license not be at risk? – Simd Oct 25 '23 at 06:55
  • 11
    FWIW, crimes of moral turpitude also impair eligibility for other licenses like liquor licenses and gambling establishment licenses. – ohwilleke Oct 25 '23 at 15:00
  • 4
    @ohwilleke The idea of these lawyers switching over to owning a liquor store is droll. Surely that's what Rudy Giuliani wants to do. – Andrew Lazarus Oct 25 '23 at 16:58
  • 9
    @AndrewLazarus Liquor license != liquor store. Investing in a fine dining restaurant sounds plausible. Trump's hotels have them. An owner convicted of a crime of moral turpitude is a reason to deny a liquor license, and a fancy restaurant without one will not survive. Even something like a golf course or bowling alley is likely to have a bar and I can think off the top of my head several burrito stores and pizza places that serve beer. – user71659 Oct 25 '23 at 17:55
  • 11
    I think there's an implicit assertion here that casual readers might not understand. Lawyers are generally held to a much higher standard when it comes to adherence to law and especially to these kinds of implicit laws. In casual terms, the "I'm a dumbass" defense is not something lawyers are able to use without claiming they are incapable of being lawyers. – JimmyJames Oct 25 '23 at 21:25
  • @user71659 there is still the implication of being an actual owner-operator of one of these venues, isn't there? Surely if one wants to become a beneficial owner-investor there are instruments for insulating the business from the status of a criminal owner. Every big publicly-traded hotel chain probably has at least one shareholder with a crime-of-moral-turpitude conviction and yet their operations survive. – Will Oct 26 '23 at 14:18
  • 2
    @ohwilleke: For that matter, such crimes can also affect the licensure of a bail bondsman like Scott Hall, who also pled guilty in the same case and received a similar stipulation from the DA. – Michael Seifert Oct 26 '23 at 17:45
  • @AndrewLazarus hey, if it's good enough for former South Vietnam prime minister Nguyễn Cao Kỳ – llama Oct 26 '23 at 18:24
  • 1
    @Will Those people have insignificant control. If your convicted felon owns 50% of the operation, that's much harder to show they can't exert influence. Also, the big hotel chains don't actually run hotels: they're franchises, so the franchise owner would be the one getting the liquor license. They have due diligence requirements too: they don't want their brand being in the news with a hotel being owned by a mob boss and they don't want somebody skimming off their royalties. – user71659 Oct 26 '23 at 21:11
  • @QuoraFeans the question doesn't ask for a definition. It asks for the significance, as in if found guilty, what are the effects and how important might they be. In other words, the consequences are exactly what I read this question to be asking. – CGCampbell Oct 27 '23 at 15:53