Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fader
431 Md. 395
| Md. | 2013Background
- Respondent Joel Jay Fader, admitted in 1989, faced two disciplinary complaints filed April 3, 2012 by Bar Counsel under MD Rule 10-TSUa).
- The first complaint concerned mismanagement of two attorney trust accounts (ATA 1 and ATA 2) and a revocation of a conditional diversion agreement (CDA).
- The second complaint arose from representations in a postponement request for a OAH hearing in Liquefatto v. DHMH, including a forged doctor’s note and misrepresentations about health.
- Judge Welch held that Fader violated MRPC 1.15(a)-(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) through trust-account misconduct;
- Regarding the Liquefatto postponement, the court found violations of MRPC 3.3, 3.4, 5.3(b), and 8.4(c) and that the misconduct warranted disbarment.
- The Court ultimately disbarred Fader and awarded costs to Bar Counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misconduct with attorney trust accounts and CDA | Fader violated 1.15(a)-(b) and 16-606/16-607/16-609 (CDA) | Fader complied post-CDA and argued no ongoing violation | Fader violated 1.15(a)-(b) and 8.4(a)/(d) via commingling; CDA breach established. |
| Postponement of Liquefatto matter before OAH | Fader falsified or failed to correct postponement materials; misled tribunal | Health issues justified postponement; not a willful disobedience | Clear and convincing evidence of 3.3 and 8.4(c) violations; admitted misrepresentations; 3.4 not proven. |
| Appropriate sanction for multiple rule violations | Disbarment warranted due to pattern of deceit and trust-account breaches | Suspension sufficient given mitigating factors | Disbarment affirmed; costs awarded; multiple offenses considered under ABA Standard 9. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 405 Md. 107 (Md. 2008) (clear and convincing standard for disciplinary findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zakroff, 387 Md. 603 (Md. 2005) (trust-account mismanagement and related misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance v. Goodman, 426 Md. 115 (Md. 2012) (prejudicial administration of justice when misusing trust accounts)
- Attorney Grievance v. White, 354 Md. 346 (Md. 1999) (candor and dishonesty in proceedings; credibility factors)
- Attorney Grievance v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370 (Md. 2011) (pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses)
- Attorney Grievance v. Mininsohn, 380 Md. 536 (Md. 2004) (mitigating factors and punishment standards)
- Attorney Grievance v. Paul, 423 Md. 268 (Md. 2011) (disparities in sanction when intent to defraud not found)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goldberg, 292 Md. 650 (Md. 1982) (early disbarment considerations for egregious misconduct)