And certainly would not result in any automatic disbarment.
This has been discussed here many times.
All the Supreme Court said in the Burdick case is that accepting a pardon "implies" a confession of guilt. And even thatis not always the case, since pardons can be and sometimes are given out to correct a miscarriage of justice or to protect someone from an improper prosecution. As a legal matter, a person receiving a pardon, even after conviction (and moreso in the case of a preemptive pardon given before any charges have been brought), is as innocent as someone who was never charged with or convicted of the crime in question.
The Supreme Court made this clear in Ex Parte Garland, decided in 1866, where the effect of a pardon was described as follows:
"A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never com mitted the offence.... if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity."
= new reply since forum marked as read
