The California State Bar Court concluded that only parts of the record of a criminal proceeding are admissible in a bar proceedings predicate on the conviction

Some documents from the criminal case are clearly admissible in disciplinary matters, such as guilty pleas and plea agreements. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6101, subd. (a) [conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt]; Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103, 110 [criminal conviction, including guilty plea, is conclusive proof attorney committed all acts necessary to constitute offense].) Accordingly, we rely only on Schwarcz’s signed plea agreement and transcript excerpts from his plea and sentencing hearings that address his guilty plea, along with his testimony from the discipline trial.

As to moral turpitude

Schwarcz argues no admissible evidence proves moral turpitude. He asserts that the factual basis for his guilty plea is limited, as it is “predicated on his agreement to make one transfer of funds, his lack of an appropriate license, and knowledge that the conduct was unlawful.” He contends that he knew the unlicensed transfer was illegal, but he did not know the transferred funds were proceeds from unlawful activity. He submits that his conduct did not amount to moral turpitude.

We reject Schwarcz’s request to limit his wrongdoing to his illegal transfer of $234,000. His plea agreement establishes the contrary. First, he stipulated that he conspired to operate an illegal money transmitting business. Second, as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, he stipulated that he sent and assisted in sending wire transfers of approximately $1 million. Third, he stipulated to the sentencing enhancement that stated he knew or believed that the transfers were proceeds of unlawful activity.

The state bar court recommended disbarment. (Mike Frisch)