On the contrary every logical reason supports the disqualification. As sustaining this view see the following cases: Barnes v. District Ct. 178 Cal. 500, 173 P. 1100; Re O'Connell, 184 Cal. 584, 194 P. 1010; Re Kerl, 32 Idaho, 737, 188 P. 40, 8 A.L.R. 1259; Re Minner, 133 Kan. 789, 3 P.2d 473, 79 A.L.R. 35; Cowan v. Prowse, 93 Ky. 156, 19 S.W. 407; Re Peters, 73 Mont. 284, 235 P. 772; State ex rel. Anderson v. Fousek, 91 Mont. 448, 8 P.2d 791, 84 A.L.R. 303; State v. Foley, 15 Nev. 64, 37 Am. Rep. 458; State v. Candler, 10 N.C. (3 Hawks) 393; Chase v. Blodgett, 10 N.H. 22; Re Hodgskin, 193 App. Div. 217, 183 N.Y.S. 401; Re Lindheim, 195 App. Div. 827, 187 N.Y.S. 211; Seitz v. Ohio State Medical Bd. 24 Ohio App. 154, 157 N.E. 304; State ex rel. Beckman v. Bowman, 38 Ohio App. 237, 175 N.E. 891; Re Elliott, 122 Okla. 180, 253 P. 103; Re Kirby, 10 S.D. 322, 414, 73 N.W. 92, 907, 39 L.R.A. 856, 859; Re Finch, 156 Wn. 609, 287 P. 677; Re Comyns, 132 Wn. 391, 232 P. 269.

Cited in the footnotes to the various statements contained in the quotation next above are the cases preceding, and annotations found at 86 A.L.R. 297; 94 A.L.R. 1012; 84 A.L.R. 303 and 175 A.L.R. 804, 805. Also of interest was the annotation 24 A.L.R. 1002. In our decision in the case of Yocham v. Horn, supra, we discussed our former opinions in In re Dunham's Estate, 181 Okla. 407, 74 P.2d 117; Queenan v. Territory, 11 Okla. 261, 71 P. 218, 61 L.R.A. 324; In re Disbarment of Elliott, 122 Okla. 180, 253 P. 103, and Weber v. State, 18 Okla. Cr. 421, 195 P. 510, an opinion of the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, as well as several other leadings cases. In the Yocham opinion, supra, we said:

Weber v. State, 18 Okla. Cr. 421, 195 P. 510. In re Disbarment of Elliott, 122 Okla. 180, 253 P. 103, an attorney, and member of the Oklahoma Bar, had pleaded guilty in the United States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, to a conspiracy in violation of federal statutes, and had been sentenced to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary. Elliott had been disbarred as an attorney, under the provisions of statute then in force, section 4106, C. O. S. 1921, subjecting an attorney to disbarment when he had been convicted of a felony under the statutes of Oklahoma, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or willful violation of any of the duties of an attorney or counselor.

Each is an officer of the court and each charged with the proper management of the property and affairs of others. Our statements here are supported to some degree by the decision in the case of In re Elliott, 122 Okla. 180, 253 P. 103. In the latter case Elliott, a member of the Oklahoma bar, had pleaded guilty in federal court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to a charge of conspiracy to procure the release of federal prisoners upon fraudulent recognizances, and upon arraignment was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary.

114 Okla. 115, 243 P. 933; State ex rel. Attorney General v. Breckenridge, 126 Okla. 86, 258 P. 744; and State ex rel. Attorney General v. Ledbetter, 127 Okla. 85, 260 P. 454; the duty of attorneys as to the funds of their clients, In re Warren, 49 Okla. 87, 151 P. 619; State v. Bresline, 67 Okla. 125, 169 P. 897; In re Sitton, 72 Okla. 13, 177 P. 555; State ex rel. Goode v. Cutlip, 83 Okla. 183, 202 P. 782; In re Disbarment of Burns, 90 Okla. 1, 215 P. 193; In re Sides, 158 Okla. 110, 12 P.2d 232; the duty of attorneys as to litigation for their clients, State ex rel. Dale v. Jefferson, 79 Okla. 288, 193 P. 44; State ex rel. Dale v. Vernor, 79 Okla. 124, 191 P. 729; In re Biggers, 24 Okla. 842, 104 P. 1083; In re Simpson, 79 Okla. 305, 192 P. 1097; In re Tillman, 157 Okla. 166, 11 P.2d 511; the conviction of attorneys of misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, In re Williams, 64 Okla. 316, 167 P. 1149; the conviction of attorneys of felonies, In re Horine, 64 Okla. 315, 167 P. 1148; In re Disbarment of Elliott, 122 Okla. 180, 253 P. 103; In re Eyler, 136 Okla. 268, 277 P. 930; In re Roach, 141 Okla. 78, 284 P. 33; fraudulent admission to the practice of law, Dean v. Stone, 2 Okla. 13, 35 P. 578; In re Mosher, 24 Okla. 61, 102 P. 705, and the moral conduct of attorneys, In re Hicks, supra. A careful examination of all of those decisions discloses no decision involving one particular transaction of an attorney in a business dealing disassociated from his duties as all attorney to the court or to his client, save only In re Hicks, supra, wherein the record showed immoral conduct which was within the provisions of the first cause for disciplinary action.

A careful reading of the cases cited by the Board of Governors does not uphold the theory that disbarment is mandatory under a conviction in the federal court. In Elliot and Chitwood Cases, In re Disbarment of Elliott, 122 Okla. 180, 253 P. 103. In re Disbarment of Chitwood, 122 Okla. 182, 253 P. 104, cited by the board, pleas of guilty were made to the charges setting forth their guilt, amounting to an admission of the facts charged against them.

While there is some conflict in the authorities, the overwhelming weight of authority sustains this view. Among some of the many cases are the following: In re Finch, 156 Wn. 609, 287 P. 677; In re O'Connell, 184 Cal. 584, 194 P. 1010; In re Shepard, 35 Cal.App. 492, 170 P. 442; In re Hodgskin, 193 App. Div. 217, 183 N.Y. Supp. 401; In re Lindheim, 195 App. Div. 827, 187 N.Y. Supp. 211; In re Elliott, 122 Okla. 180, 253 P. 103; In re Kerl, 32 Idaho, 755, 8 A.L.R. 1259, 188 P. 40; In re Kirby, 10 S.D. 32, 414, 39 L.R.A. 856, 859, 73 N.W. 92, 907; Seitz v. Ohio State Medical Board, supra; Barnes v. District Court, 178 Cal. 500, 173 P. 1100; State ex rel. Beckman v. Bowman, supra. The reason for the enactment of section 511 was the underlying principle that the security of our government depends upon respect for laws and the confidence of the people in our public officers.

Many states have statutes specifying conviction of a felony as one of the causes for disbarring an attorney and providing that the record of conviction shall be conclusive evidence and, without exception, it is held by the courts of these states that when an attorney at law has been convicted of a felony and a certified copy of the record of his conviction has been filed in the court Where disbarment proceedings are pending, no evidence as to his guilt or innocence of the crime of which he has been convicted will be heard. Some of the cases so holding are: In re Casebier, 129 Kan. 853, 284 P. 611; In re Roach, 141 Okl. 78, 284 P. 33; In re Patrick, 136 App. Div. 450, 120 N.Y. S. 1006; In re Finch, 156 Wn. 609, 287 P. 677. It is equally well settled where such statutes are in force that conviction of a felony in a federal court is ground for disbarment under the statute in a state court. In re Kerl, 32 Idaho, 737, 188 P. 40, 8 A.L.R. 1259; In re Elliott, 122 Okl. 180, 253 P. 103; In re O'Connell, 184 Cal. 584, 194 P. 1010; In re Ackerson, 218 App. Div. 388, 218 N.Y. S. 654; In re Minner, 133 Kan. 789, 3 P.2d 473; In re Kirby, 10 S.D. 322, 414, 73 N.W. 92, 907, 39 L.R.A. 856, 859. The General Assembly of 1892 adopted an act entitled, "An Act concerning attorneys-at-law, Attorney-General, attorney for the Commonwealth and attorneys for counties."