delivered the opinion of the Court.
On Mаy 7, 1971, Elaine Worley Kerr, a member of the Maryland bar and the respondent in this disciplinary proсeeding, entered a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the first count of an indictment (No. 1079-70) which charged her with using the mail to defraud in violation of Title 18, § 1341 of the United Stаtes Code. After Mrs. Kerr was sentenced by that court to serve a prison term of two years for the offense, she appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on December 12,1972, affirmed this judgment and sentence, and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States in October of 1973. 1
Alleging the existence of this District Court fraud cоnviction, the Maryland State Bar Association filed charges of professional misconduct, which requested this Court to impose appropriate sanctions against Mrs. Kerr. In support of its petition the Bar Association, relying on Maryland Rule BY4 f 1, offered into evidence a properly certificated copy of the District Court’s judgment and sentence as proоf of professional transgression on the part of the respondent. 2 That rule in pertinent part provides:
“. . . a final judgment by a judicial tribunal in another proceeding convicting an attorney of a crime shall be conclusive proof of the guilt of the attorney of such crime. A plea or verdict of guilty, or a pleа of nolo contendere followed by a fine or sentence, shall be deemed to bе a conviction within the meaning of this Rule.” (emphasis added).
*689 When the judicial panel to which the charges were referred by this Court for a hearing (Rule BV3 b) found that the allegations of the pеtition had been sustained and recommended that Mrs. Kerr be disbarred from the further practicе of law in this State (Rule BV5 a), she filed exceptions (Rule BV5 b 2). Through these the respondent contеnds that the District Court’s judgment is not “final” within the meaning of Rule BV4 f 1 because there is still pending at this time, in the Circuit Court of Appeals, an appeal from the refusal of the District Court to grant her Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate the mail fraud judgment and sentence. Section 2255 in part states:
“A prisoner in сustody [(judicially construed to include a defendant on parole, Wapnick v. United States,406 F. 2d 741 (2d Cir. 1969); cf. Jones v. Cunningham,371 U.S. 236 ,9 L.Ed.2d 285 ,83 S. Ct. 373 (1963))] under sentence of а court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sеntence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may movе the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correсt the sentence.
“A motion for such relief may be made at any time.”
We reject the contention of the respondent that the District Court judgmеnt is not final as it is clear to us that a Section 2255 proceeding, until or unless it is successful, does not destroy the integrity or conclusiveness of an otherwise final criminal judgment. This is so because undеr the federal cases a Section 2255 proceeding, like its Maryland counterpart, the Post Conviction Procedure Act (Maryland Code (1957, 1971 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 645A
et seq.),
does not constitute a pаrt of the original criminal cause, but is an independent and collateral civil inquiry into the validity оf
*690
the conviction and sentence.
Andrews v. United States,
The respondent here was convicted of fraud, a сrime plainly involving moral turpitude; it is a crime which we have just recently made clear will result in disbаrment for the perpetrator who is a member of the bar of this State unless there are рresent very compelling circumstances which justify a lesser sanction.
Maryland St. Bar Ass’n v. Agnew,
It is so ordered.
Notes
. When the Supremе Court refused to grant a stay, the respondent was required to begin serving the prison sentence on April 13, 1973, and was subsequently paroled on April 10, 1974.
. DR 1-102 under Canon 1 of the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility adopted in this State by Rule 1230 provides in part that:
“ (A) A lawyer shall not:
(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turoitude.
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”