In re Disbarment of Leonard L. Sutton
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1942, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Committee on Legal Ethics v. Six (W. Va. 1989)
- In re Reinstatement of John G. Priebe (Minn. 1942)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Eespondent was convicted on his plea of nolo contendere of the crime of embezzlement in the United States district court, third division, of Minnesota, and sentence (suspended) for 15 months in a penitentiary imposed and respondent placed on probation for a period of two years.
Mason St. 1927, § 5697(1) (A) makes conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude ground for removal or suspension of an attorney at law by this court and makes the record of conviction conclusive evidence of the crime. In response to an order to show cause why the respondent should not be immediately and forthwith disbarred, he filed an answer in which he sought to allege certain extenuating circumstances which resulted in his embezzlement of the money and ultimately in his federal court conviction.
So long as the conviction stands it cannot be questioned here by such evidence as respondent proposes to offer in defense in this disbarment proceeding. The crime of which he was convicted is a crime involving moral turpitude, and under the circumstances we are not convinced that there are any extenuating circumstances shown which would warrant the appointment of a referee to hear *77 any plea which respondent might make. We do not feel that respondent is entitled to leniency. He is therefore disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys entitled to practice in this state.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.