[1] OPINION
[2] On November 16, 1992, pursuant to Rule 7.31 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 1991, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, this Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law, and ordered that he show cause why this Order of Interim Suspension should be set aside. The respondent filed his response. The issue is *Page 553 whether the Interim Suspension should be continued during the pendency of the respondent's appeal of his criminal convictions.
[3] This bar matter comes to this Court pursuant to Rule 7.2,2 Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 1991, Ch. 1, App. 1-A. The rule requires the General Counsel of the Bar Association to transmit to this Court certified copies of an indictment and of a judgment and sentence in a criminal case involving a lawyer. Such documents were received from the General Counsel concerning the respondent. The respondent was convicted on four of the fourteen counts in the indictment and sentenced to sixty-five months in prison. The judgment reveals that the respondent was convicted of counts, 8 and 9, "Bankruptcy fraud; aid abet;"3 count 12, "Bankruptcy" fraud;"4 and count 14, "Money laundering."5 A copy of a Notice of Intent to Appeal was provided to this Court in which the respondent has stated his intent to appeal the judgment and sentence of September 24, 1992.
[4] In response to the order of interim suspension, the respondent lists the inequities *Page 554 he alleges that led to his indictment and conviction. His allegations include bias by the Oklahoma district court in rendering and enforcing the original judgment which precipitated the bankruptcy filing, and preferential treatment given to the judgment creditor by the Trustee in Bankruptcy who attempted to claim for herself as attorney fees and expenses 37.4 percent of a multimillion dollar bankruptcy estate. He asserts that his first criminal trial resulted in acquittal of all charges except five, where the jury voted 11-1 for acquittal. He maintains that when he was retried the federal trial court excluded much of the evidence that had convinced eleven members of the first jury to acquit, and that as a result of the wrongful exclusion of evidence, he was convicted on four charges.
[5] The response of the respondent does not provide a legal reason for this Court to set aside its order of suspension. Rule 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings provide that the judgment and sentence of conviction is conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based. No further evidence is necessary. State of Oklahoma, exrel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815, 819 (Okla. 1990).
[6] We must accept the judgment and sentence of conviction in this matter as conclusive evidence that the respondent committed bankruptcy fraud, aided and abetted in such fraud, and was guilty of money laundering. If the Respondent has correctly claimed that evidence from the criminal trial was improperly excluded and that such evidence would change the result, then the issue must be resolved by the federal appellate courts. This Court will not review the procedure nor merits of a criminal conviction in a disciplinary proceeding.
[7] Likewise, if the respondent received biased treatment in his Oklahoma district court trial, an appeal of that trial is the proper remedy. Certainly mistreatment by an Oklahoma district court and by the federal bankruptcy courts still does not justify or mitigate fraudulent activity because the commission of fraud reflects upon a lawyer's fitness to practice law.
[8] Although conviction of some crimes requires further evidence to establish a lawyer's unfitness to practice law, other crimes will demonstrate such unfitness by the fact of the conviction.6 Fraud is one such crime. Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. . . .
[9] Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 1991, Ch. 1, App. 3-A. The comment to this section states: "Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud. . . ." Because the respondent was convicted of fraud by the federal court, this Court must accept the conviction as conclusive proof of the respondent's commission of fraud. The respondent has given no legal argument why this Court should reach any other conclusion.
[10] Accordingly, the interim suspension shall remain in effect until the appeal of the criminal conviction is resolved, at which time final disposition of this matter will be made.7 *Page 555
[11] HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and SIMMS, HARGRAVE, KAUGER, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.
[12] OPALA, J., not participating.
"All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 152 and 2."
Count 9 provides: "From on or about April 11, 1988, and continuously thereafter until the present, in the Western District of Oklahoma and elsewhere, ____ F. DALE CRABTREE, and RALPH J. CUBBLER III, ____ the defendants herein knowingly, fraudulently and willfully concealed and caused to be concealed from the Trustee in Bankruptcy and creditors of the debtor estates in the proceedings entitled In re: F. Dale Crabtree, Case No. 87-9110-TS and In re: The Orchard Company, Case No. 87-9114-TS in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, a check dated March 28, 1988, from Providence Gas Company in the amount of $2,233.61, which was property belonging to the estates of defendant CRABTREE and The Orchard Company,
"All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 152 and 2."
"All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 152."
"All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and 2."