In Re Clark

THE COURT.

Clark was convicted in 1962 on four counts of violating subdivision (a) of section 26104 of the Corporations Code by knowingly selling stock without a permit, and the judgment was affirmed

(People

v.

Clark,

215 Cal.App.2d 734 [40 Cal.Rptr. 487] [petition for hearing denied]). We referred the matter to the State Bar for a report as to whether moral turpitude was involved and, if so found, for a recommendation as to discipline.

The Board of Governors found that moral turpitude was involved and recommends that Clark be suspended for three years. (There were no dissenting votes.) The local committee made the same finding and recommendation. Clark has filed

[612]

objections to the report and recommendation and contends that moral turpitude was not involved and that, in any event, the discipline recommended is too severe.

It is well established that the findings of the State Bar must be given great weight, although they are not binding upon this court

(Grove

v.

State Bar,

63 Cal.2d 312, 315 [46 Cal.Rptr. 513, 405 P.2d 553];

Werner

v.

State Bar,

24 Cal.2d 611, 623 [150 P.2d 892]) and that the burden is upon the petitioner seeking a review of the Board of Governors’ recommendation to show that the findings are not supported by the evidence or that the recommendation is erroneous (In re

Hallman,

48 Cal.2d 52, 53 [307 P.2d 1]). In our opinion Clark has not met this burden.

Violations of the Corporate Securities Act involve moral turpitude if they are not merely technical but are accompanied by an intent to evade the act with the object of gain or profit.