under the federal felony tax evasion statute amounted to an act of moral turpitude sufficient to justify disciplinary action. Agnew, 271 Md. at 551, 318 A.2d 811. In contrast to the felony statute involved in Agnew, however, the Walman Court recognized that the misdemeanor tax statute at issue in Walman did not contain fraud as an essential element. Walman, 280 Md. at 457-58, 374 A.2d 354. As we see it, appellant misinterprets Walman. The Court there did not conclude that a violation of a misdemeanor statute cannot amount to a crime of moral turpitude. Rather, it ruled that, when fraud is not an essential element of crime, the offense is not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude. See also Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Sperling, 288 Md. 576, 577-78, 419 A.2d 1067 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Rheb v. Bar Ass’n of Balt. City, 186 Md. 200,
holding that assault with a deadly weapon was not a crime involving moral turpitude recognizing that misdemeanor of passing bad checks totaling 250 constituted crime of moral turpitude holding that robbery under california law categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude and noting precedent in this and other circuits that theft crimes are crimes involving moral turpitude holding that new yorks reckless conduct statute establishes a crime involving moral turpitude holding that missouris reckless conduct statute establishes a crime involving moral turpitude