Attorney Grievance Commission v. Adams
109 A.3d 114
| Md. | 2015Background
- Scott Adams, an experienced attorney (inactive in MD since 2001) and CPA, represented an estate (Helen Brownell) and filed a Maine estate tax return late after learning the estate exceeded the federal filing threshold; substantial penalties and interest resulted. Adams self-reported and ultimately reimbursed the estate.
- Maine disciplinary process produced two panels: Panel D concluded initial decision not to file was a mistaken judgment but disciplined Adams for failing to act promptly once he learned of the error (warning); Panel E found Adams misled counsel about ownership of three commercial properties transferred to an LLC and issued a reprimand.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a reciprocal-discipline petition alleging violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 and 8.4(a),(c),(d); some claims were withdrawn; matter was referred for an evidentiary hearing in Maryland.
- Maryland hearing judge found violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 8.4(c) (dishonesty) but did not find fraudulent conveyance; recommended discipline informed by Maine panels.
- Maryland Court reviewed de novo legal conclusions, accepted uncontested findings of 1.1 and 1.3 violations, rejected the finding of 8.4(c) misrepresentation as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, but held that violations of 1.1 and 1.3 also constituted a violation of 8.4(a).
- Sanction: public reprimand imposed by Maryland Supreme Court; costs assessed. Justice Watts (with Battaglia) concurred in part and would have found 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) violations and imposed indefinite suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adams committed misconduct warranting reciprocal discipline under Md. Rule 16-773 | Maine panels established misconduct (Panel D: delay in addressing error; Panel E: misrepresentation about property ownership) so Maryland should impose corresponding discipline, potentially greater | Adams argued his initial tax judgment was reasonable, he self-reported, reimbursed the estate, and did not knowingly misrepresent property ownership; formation of LLC predated litigation and was not fraudulent | Court treated Maine findings as persuasive but reviewed record: upheld violations of MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3; rejected clear-and-convincing proof of MLRPC 8.4(c) misrepresentation; imposed public reprimand (violation of 8.4(a) based on 1.1/1.3) |
| Whether Adams knowingly misrepresented ownership interests in email to his counsel (MLRPC 8.4(c)) | Petitioner: Adams’s email and silence misled counsel and court, preventing initial attachment on the LLC-owned properties; Panel E’s finding is conclusive unless rebutted | Adams: email truthfully stated he and his wife "have interests" in the properties; he did not affirmatively misstate title; LLC conveyances predated suit and were not fraudulent; he cooperated and later included LLC in attachment | Court: sustained Adams’s exception to 8.4(c); evidence did not prove knowing misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence; Panel E’s finding not accepted here as dispositive on that point |
| Whether Adams violated MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3 by delay in filing federal estate tax return | Petitioner: delay after learning of filing requirement caused harm (penalties/interest) and demonstrates lack of competence and diligence | Adams: had initially formed a reasonable professional judgment the estate was below threshold; when error discovered he remedied and reimbursed | Court: accepted hearing judge’s findings—Adams violated MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3 because of ~18-month delay causing client harm |
| Appropriate sanction for admitted misconduct | Petitioner: seek deviation from Maine reprimand to indefinite suspension given alleged dishonesty and aggravating factors | Adams: mitigators—self-reporting, full restitution, remorse, cooperation, no prior discipline—support lesser sanction (reprimand) | Court: issued public reprimand, citing mitigation and parity with similar Maryland cases; Watts, J. would have suspended for additional findings of dishonesty/prejudice to administration of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Katz, 429 Md. 308 (discusses treatment of sister-jurisdiction disciplinary findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (deference to hearing judge factfindings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695 (exceptions to hearing judge findings reviewed for clear error)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Queen, 407 Md. 556 (reprimand for violations of competence and diligence; mitigation considered)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (competence rule application when untimely action harms client)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Granger, 374 Md. 438 (mitigation does not erase prior lack of diligence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van Nelson, 425 Md. 344 (MLRPC 8.4(a) violation where other rules breached)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532 (dishonesty by omission; 8.4(c) discussion)