*2 BUTTS, BIERY, Before CHAPA and JJ.
OPINION BUTTS, Justice. appeal
This is an Bar a license law. counsel, Texas, through general institut- Turton, attorney, against Eric ed action Act, pursuant to the State TEX.GOV’T 1988) (Vernon ANN. CODE G, A, T.2, App. Subt. the State 7(8) 26(B) (G) (Vernon & 1988). sought compulsory The State Bar suspension. disbarment January entered a On charge plea of “nolo to a contendere” assault, occurring the offense on placed 1985. Turton March trial court de- years’ after the guilt. discipli- ferred In the Discipline may imposed profes- nary proceedings the trial court sional misconduct which includes: Turton’s law license for the same term of (8) Convictionof a serious crime or probation. grievance There has been no placed in connection with a committee action at the local level. adjudi- with or without an guilt provided cation of in Section 26. *3 point In his first of error Turton X, Art. 26§ contends that the trial court in erred admit (G) Suspension. attorney’s If an sen- ting into evidence the order which deferred upon tence conviction of a serious crime adjudication granted probation, and for the fully probated, attorney is or if an re- purpose showing of re conviction as probation adjudication ceived without an quired by TEX.GOVT CODE ANN. guilt, attorney suspended of shall be 81.078(b). He reasons that the order § during probation; the term of such could not constitute a pur conviction for (B) Serious Crime Defined. A serious poses disciplinary disagree. of action. We crime, section, for the purpose of this 81.078(b) Section states as follows: any felony involving turpi- shall be (b) proof attorney’s On of an convic- theft, tude or misdemeanor competent jurisdic- tion in a trial court of embezzlement, misappro- or fraudulent any felony involving turpi- tion of priation money property.... of or other tude or of misdemeanor X, discipline Article 7 authorizes where § theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent given probation has in connection been with misappropriation money prop- of or other crime, a serious even where there has been erty, the county district court of the of X, adjudication guilt. no of Article 26§ attorney the residence of the convicted clearly suspension mandates at- where the suspending shall enter an order the at- probation torney adju- receives without an torney practice during from the of law guilt. interpret 81.078(b) dication of We § pendency any appeals of from the Therefore, consistent with the Rules. attorney conviction. An who has been 81.078(b), supra, together is read § conviction, given probation after applicable with the State Bar it is adjudicated unadjudicated, whether required clear that an where shall be attorney placed adjudi- with during probation, guilt cation deferred in the case of a added) suspen- serious crime. The argues the criminal law specifically sion based was § context, always sig- “conviction” the word X, and the State Bar Rules art. § guilt. adjudication nifies an The State points Turton further out that the State Bar Act Rules are not criminal stat- and “in indicate that action Rules 81.078(b) Although repeatedly utes. § attorney brought discipline who has “conviction,” uses the word the final sen- a serious been convicted of pur- tence of that section indicates that for evi- record of conviction shall be conclusive poses against an at- attorney guilt dence of torney unadjudicated there can be an “con- attorney crime of which the was convict- urges 81.078 is viction.” Turton that § X, RULES, art. See ed.” STATE BAR defective,” can “fatally because there be 26(C). Appellant provision reads this § guilt. adjudication of conviction without an mean that a record of actual conviction Therefore, the admission into evidence suspen- upon which the exclusive evidence adjudication order error. the deferred X, 26(G) 81.078(b) and art. sion under § § 81.078(b) together Section to be read therefore the ad- predicated, and X, 7(8) and with State Bar Rules art. granting deferred ad- mission of the order 26(G) (B). provide perti- & Those rules improper. probation was judication and part: nent interpretation. Ad- disagree with this We criminal case of the order in the mission Art. § pleadings purposefully in order for The State necessary this case narrowly and limit the action’s 81.078(b) X, 26(G) given to be § basis, focusing conviction only on Turton’s point The first is overruled. effect. alleges petition The crime. point years his error Turton de- placed second on ten that Turton “was admitting adjudication offense court erred in contends ferred [a] aggrava- turpitude, to wit: plea of appellant’s nolo contendere. bodily injury.” with serious Turton, ted assault in the criminal case order copies the infor- attached State Bar guilt deferred instrument), (charging order mation in probation, granted adult references deferring adjudica- granting Bargain attached “Terms of Plea cludes an tion, plea bargain agreement. The and the Agreement.” The attached document indi or- petition’s prayer was that Turton be Turton’s of nolo contendere to cates *4 dered disbarred or in the alternative sus- charge. argues Turton that criminal the pended practice during the the from of law 410, a plea to pursuant TEX.R.CIV.EVID. probation. judgment In pendency of his any is not of nolo contendere admissible that the court found against made suit the defendant who civil allegations of the material Petitioner’s case, plea. disciplinary In this the ac the proven in Disciplinary have been Petition brought by the Bar is based State tion Petitioner, entirety that the their provisions of the order in entirely the Act, Bar TEX. pursuant to the State granting probation criminal in con the case (Vernon CODE ANN. GOV’T § crime, trig nection with a serious X, 1988) and the State Rules art. suspension provi gered mandatory the judgment. is entitled to ... § sions. admission the nolo conten- ordered from was plea part as a order dere years’ during proba- ten triggering provisions contained the salient “pursu- tion had been ordéred term which inconsequential. Suspension is mandato adjudication guilt for ant his deferred ry, giv under inju- assault with serious his attorney-defendant en an as a result of ry, turpitude....” moral commission of a serious whether or opening In to the court her statement not there evidence of a of nolo emphasized the basis State counsel contendere. the action: objection in this case statutes, I And the reason stress the it “shows whole order’s admission because been, Honor, type has Your this plea.” it was entered on a nolo To sustain action, is is not a cause of because this objection of an order such an to admission words, In other we regular case. fact granting probation the man- would vitiate brought case on the basis have not this datory suspension provisions brought this underlying facts, we discus- Bar Act and Rules set forth our that was case solely point appellant’s sion of first of error. We ten giving years Mr. Turton the entered require find Rule 410 does not exclusion added) (emphasis adjudication, deferred the order evidence in this Bar counsel then introduced The State attorney. The second evidence, cop- objection, into over certified point is overruled. ies of the order of deferred instrument). (charging and the information point the trial The third of error is stated: Counsel concluding under the facts court erred Honor, constitutes the State Bar does not shown that assault Your put mean on at this turpitude. this to other evidence moral We construe have position face, as our that on its time. It’s that it was not shown that involving aggravated assault with serious moral per se sault involving crime bodily injury is a turpitude. point. this We sustain —seri- ous crime turpitude, meanors which are not at issue here. Arti- added) X, 26(G)provides cle sus- § pension during the term of re- The State Bar then rested. The intention sulting from commission of “a serious of the State Bar was candidly and clearly crime.” See also 7(8), supra. § articulated: ruling obtain a X, 26(B) Article defines “a serious crime” bodily inju- “any felony turpitude,” ry law, as a matter of crime specific types certain of misde- The underlying facts in meanors, which are the same ones enumer- the Turton case were immaterial to the 81.078(b) ated in of the State Bar Act. position. State Bar’s This case would be first action in Texas to State, Muniz v. 575 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. proclaim se rule. And thereafter, Civ.App. Corpus Christi writ ref’d — when an attorney adjudged to have n.r.e.), is defined in the any aggravated committed assault with context of a disciplinary action as: serious bodily injury, on the State Bar’s 1) anything done knowingly contrary to motion for summary judgment with the justice, honesty, principle, good mor- charging attached instrument adjudica- als. papers, the trial court would be autho- 2) baseness, an act vileness, or de- grant rized summary judgment since pravity private in the and social duties there question. would be no fact which a man owes to his fellow men or to *5 At the hearing, based on the society general. in above, documents listed the trial court was 3) something itself, in regard- immoral asked to find as a matter law that less of punishable by whether it is law. aggravated assault is felony involving a doing itself, The of the act and not its turpitude. moral prohibition by statute, fixes the moral
The in petition alleges State Bar only turpitude. felony “a involving turpitude offense moral 4) immoral conduct is that conduct which aggravated bodily assault with serious willful, flagrant, shameless, is injury.” argument In its to the trial court shows moral indifference to the Bar’s counsel said: "... Our position opinion good respectable mem- aggravated bodily community. bers injury just law, as a matter of felony 575 S.W.2d at 411-12. involving turpitude.” moral In its brief the It in Muniz v. acknowledged was also State Bar also stresses position: this same that, question of whether a “[t]he The nature of assault is that particular turpitude crime involves moral it is a violent in perpe- crime which the to by be determined a consideration of the trator intends to inflict bodily serious nature of the offense as bears injury person. attorney to another An attorney’s moral fitness to continue in the who commits assault has vio- practice of law.” Id. at lated the established societal values place great importance on human A judgment convicting final an at life, dignity and and such conduct demon- torney involving turpitude of a crime moral (sic) disregard strates little for the laws suspension is cause attorney’s protecting aimed at per- the threatened (in case, guilty A disbarment. this The State Bar submits son. contendere) nolo is conclusive evidence of assault is a moral tur- It commission of the offense. does not pitude. added). however, question answer the whether his supra, provides 81.078(b), Section or the circumstances of its commis sion, must follow when an suspension ques attorney turpitude. involved That moral given probation after a “conviction” of one of to be resolved “any felony involving Searcy v. State Bar of turpitude” moral court. 604 specific types 256, (Tex.Civ.App. a series of misde- S.W.2d 260 n. 2 — San
717 bodily inju- 1980, n.r.e.). serious ref 'd Moral tur assault with Antonio writ turpitude as a pitude concept. ry, felony is a Conviction nebulous crimes, argument those to particularly presented some matter of law. gain, dishonesty personal aggravated assault for trial court was that intentional offense, turpitude on its In face. is an injury establishes with 743, 749, Strick, 644, 43 P.2d re Cal.3d 738 moral tur- for which establishes conviction However, 397, (1987). Cal.Rptr. 403 judgment plainly 238 pitude per se. crimes, standing of some the commission unambiguously supports pleadings. alone, implicate attorney’s fit does not an imple- Thus, uphold would practice law. In such case moral ness to far-reaching effect in this State ment its imputed turpitude from the con cannot be purposes of disbar- because inquiry must be made into viction alone and ag- ment or conviction surrounding the commis the circumstances bodily injury gravated assault with serious sion the crime. Id. automatically be a would se. which, per not crimes are crimes
Some se, We believe involve inflexible, per adopt an se We decline one of those. aggravated assault characterizing aggravated as- rule thus 236, Larkin, 48 Cal.3d Compare re attorney bodily injury sault with serious (1989). Cal.Rptr. P.2d appo- can find actions. We jurisdiction which case from another above, site noted conviction of some
As applies per se rule assault cases. turpitude per crimes establishes moral se. in this kind of case involv- We believe that The courts of California have characterized action, the of fact ing disciplinary trier universally morally reprehensible, as these totality circum- examine they Or which should such as murder. are crimes stances, including mitigating circum- necessarily involve intent defraud stances, particular in each case. engage personal in dishonest acts for gain, theft, perjury, embezzle not done this Because that was Mostman, re 47 Cal.3d ment. See In *6 supports case and because the 286, 292 Cal.Rptr. P.2d aggravated that assault per the se rule (1989). turpitude for felony involving moral is a Texas never decided The courts of have compulsory and dis purposes of aggravated whether suspension, and we reverse barment and bodily injury turpitude constitutes judgment. render the the per inquiry se or whether a factual into Justice, dissenting. BIERY, required circumstances of the offense is respectfully I dissent. in- determine whether the offense is one volving present In the assault, elements present any case the State Bar not did contest, pled are that a appellant which evidence other than court documents. intentionally, knowingly, or reck- person (a of the attorney’s expert witness member lessly bodily injury to anoth- causes serious An- Committee in San State Grievance 22.- TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. er. he some years) tonio for nine indicated had 22.02(a)(1) (Vernon 1989). 01(a)(1), “Seri- knowledge of the offense when cross-exam- “bodily injury injury” means ous ques- by the and asked a ined risk of death or creates a substantial that judge. the No evidence death, permanent dis- that causes however, and presented, any facts as to impair- protracted figurement, or loss ex- surrounding the circumstances. It was any bodily member ment the function not a pert’s opinion that this case organ.” ANN. TEX.PENAL CODE suspension. proper compulsory one for 1974). Thus, aggra- 1.07(a)(34)(Vernon slapping of the mere assault not the vated
In this action State Bar’s Rather, person by another. theory that one pleadings only tendered extreme violence crime the offense Turton was convicted of being charge done to another human that: death stances as- result; self-defense, may sault, victim they be beaten with- such as should be life; livers, in an inch kidneys of his her examined and taken into account in the ruptured; spleens eyes gouged and are are A proceeding. criminal trial of no out; crushed; pain bones are and extreme guilty contest assault im- is inflicted. plies mitigating that the has no defendant circumstances to raise.
“Turpitude” is defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary being vile hav- lay would claim If we continue to to the ing depravity. inherent To baseness “great profession,” title and learned and if State, and that of this definition v. Muniz lay being legitimate we claim to would (T ex.Civ.App 575 S.W.2d Madison, professional Lin- descendants 411-12 n.r.e.), .—Corpus I Christi writ ref’d would coln, Holmes, Cardozo, Hand and then we turpitude add that moral be described as require of must ourselves strictest reprehensible that which is conduct standards which are consistent with the engenders outrage part helping purpose profession. of the community. of the I hold would that assault ministry, that the There is a reason medi- lawyer upon another human great are cine and the law three and se, with- purpose professions: learned their common meaning BAR STATE RULES art. help beings spiritu- is to human other in the 26(B). X, § al, physical aspects secular of their committing
lives. extreme How is person upon body
violence of another goal legal profes-
consistent with help,
sion to not hurt?
Forty-four years ago, the world wit- struggle
nessed the end of a titanic about the basic of western values civilization. Richard & Michelle Pitted one another those who were THROWER, Appellants, deeply believed human single even a life has value versus the forces racial v. believed, superiority who and acted JOHNSTON, Appellee. Dan Mrs. P. belief, beings “superior” human No. 05-87-00775-CV. or kill power bludgeon, have the maim quantity beings, other human whether the Appeals Court of *7 forget be six million or one.1 We must not Dallas. those lessons. members July must, profession professional their lives, of human private stand value
life, illegal power to not the and immoral
destroy it.
Further, our pro- one reasons for of dis-
fessional existence is the resolution
putes in a manner. To resolve civilized resorting is in-
dispute by force brutal purpose. professional
consistent with that finder, in
It is asserted the fact proceeding, have the should
ability any mitigating circum- to examine mitigating circum-
stances. If there were struggle today.
1. A resumed China similar