See also 1947 PA 34; 1948 CL 601.48, 601.61, 691.51, 691.52; 1961 PA 236, §§ 901, 904; MCL 600.901; MSA 27A.901; MCL 600.904; MSA 27A.904. See Const 1963, art 6, § 5; In the Matter of Mills, an Attorney, 1 Mich. 392, 393-394 (1850); In re Hartford, 282 Mich. 124; 275 N.W. 791 (1937); In re Schlossberg v State Bar Grievance Board, 388 Mich. 389, 395; 200 N.W.2d 219 (1972). 273 Mich xxxv (1935).

As early as 1850, this Court recognized and exercised its power to regulate members of our state Bar. In the Matter of Mills, An Attorney, 1 Mich. 392 (1850), cited with approval in In re Hartford, 282 Mich. 124 (1937). This Court has recently adopted a new Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons and Disciplinary Rules. Actions such as those with which Mr. O'Rourke is charged would constitute professional misconduct even prior to the adoption of this Code, and it is alleged he has also persisted in this type of conduct subsequent to the adoption of the new Code.

" Of similar import are the cases of Collins v. Godfrey, Admr., 324 Mass. 574, 87 N.E.2d 838; In re Mills, 1 Mich. 392; In re Hartford, 282 Mich. 124, 275 N.W. 791; Delano's Case, 58 N.H. 5, 42 Am. Rep., 555; Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 133 P.2d 325, 144 A.L.R., 839; and In re Lambuth, 18 Wn. 478, 51 P. 1071, to which many more could be added. The term, "moral turpitude," as it relates to the professional conduct of an attorney has been interpreted differently by different courts.

The disciplinary order is not without precedent in this jurisdiction. See In re Radford, 168 Mich. 474, and In re Hartford, 282 Mich. 124. As was said of the defendant in the Hartford Case so it might well be said of defendant in the instant case. "His actions exhibit a gross disregard of the obligations imposed upon him by virtue of his status as an attorney and officer of the court, and are not compatible with the attitude and sense of moral responsibility which must be possessed by those with whom the administration of justice is entrusted if the respect and dignity of the courts is to be maintained."

The disciplinary order is not without precedent in this jurisdiction. See In re Radford, 168 Mich. 474, and In re Hartford, 282 Mich. 124. As was said of the defendant in the Hartford Case so it might well be said of defendant in the instant case. "`His actions exhibit a gross disregard of the obligations imposed upon him by virtue of his status as an attorney and officer of the court, and are not compatible with the attitude and sense of moral responsibility which must be possessed by those with whom the administration of justice is entrusted if the respect and dignity of the courts is to be maintained.'"