Attorney Grievance Commission v. Dore
433 Md. 685
| Md. | 2013Background
- Dore, a Maryland foreclosure lawyer, directed non-lawyer staff to sign his name on affidavits filed in court and to affix notary seals.
- The practice surged during the 2008–2010 foreclosure surge as filings increased dramatically and the firm expanded staff and processes.
- Dore relied on Fisher v. McGuire to justify signature delegation, and misread a Deed of Substitution to extend signing authority to others not authorized.
- Judge Caroom privately admonished Dore in April 2010 for irregularities and Dore immediately ceased the practice, self-reported to Bar Counsel, and sought ethics counsel.
- In May 2010 Dore oversaw a corrective program, reviewing affected files, drafting corrective affidavits, and incurring substantial costs for restitution and corrective filings.
- The hearing court found violations of Maryland Rules 3.3(a)(1), 5.3(a)(1), and 8.4(d); Rule 8.4(c) was not proven; a 90-day suspension was imposed starting 30 days after the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Dore violate Rule 3.3(a)(1) Candor Toward the Tribunal? | Bar Counsel says yes; false statements due to his delegation. | Dore argues no intent to deceive; mistaken reliance on law. | Yes, violated 3.3(a)(1). |
| Did Dore violate Rule 5.3(a)(1) by supervising nonlawyers? | Bar Counsel asserts lack of supervision allowed improper signing. | Dore believed delegation was permissible and not fully aware of notarizations. | Yes, violated 5.3(a)(1). |
| Did Dore violate Rule 8.4(d) Prejudicial to the administration of justice? | Bar Counsel argues conduct harmed courts’ integrity and efficiency. | Dore claims lack of intent to deceive; mitigated by corrective actions. | Yes, violated 8.4(d). |
| Was there a violation of Rule 8.4(c) Dishonesty or misrepresentation? | Bar Counsel asserted deceit through false statements. | No intent to deceive; misrepresentations due to mistaken belief. | No, not proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| What sanction is appropriate for the misconduct? | 90-day suspension commencing 30 days after the opinion; costs payable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1 (Md. 2006) (reprimand insufficient where multiple rule violations demonstrate serious misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448 (Md. 1996) (supervision failures as aggravating factors in sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kimmel, 405 Md. 647 (Md. 2008) (indefinite suspension for failure to supervise high-volume practice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Paul, 423 Md. 268 (Md. 2011) (reprimand for falsifying a signature on a stipulation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (Md. 2006) (disciplines Rule 8.4(c) with no required intent to deceive in certain false statements)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (Md. 2007) (distinction between fraudulent acts and false statements under 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nichols, 405 Md. 207 (Md. 2008) (misrepresentation context under 8.4(c))