Attorney Grievance Commission v. Geesing
436 Md. 56
| Md. | 2013Background
- George J. Geesing, a Maryland attorney and partner at BWW Law, authorized two nonlawyer staff (also notaries) to sign his name on foreclosure documents and to notarize affidavits he had not signed; this practice occurred broadly from Aug. 2008–Nov. 2009.
- After mortgagors challenged notarizations in five foreclosures, Geesing consulted counsel, ceased the practice, and self‑reported to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
- BWW Law dismissed and refiled five cases with Geesing‑signed documents and later filed corrective affidavits in ~2,500 open foreclosure matters at firm expense (~$140,000); some courts ordered replacements and some appeals raised the issue.
- The hearing judge found Geesing violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1), 5.3(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) (but not 8.4(c)); Geesing excepted only to the 3.3(a)(1) finding.
- The Court reviewed conclusions of law de novo, upheld the violations, and suspended Geesing from practice for 90 days (effective 30 days after opinion), awarding costs to the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Geesing violate MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) (false statements to a tribunal)? | Geesing filed affidavits he knew were falsely notarized; that is a knowing false statement to tribunals. | Geesing argued any false statements were negligent, not knowing; he believed adopting signatures made staff signatures lawful. | Court: Upheld violation — filing falsely notarized affidavits constituted knowing misrepresentations because notaries must observe signatures. |
| Did Geesing violate MLRPC 5.3(a) (supervision of nonlawyer assistants)? | Staff were instructed to engage in conduct incompatible with professional obligations (signing and notarizing unsigned affidavits). | Geesing contended he reviewed documents and believed adoption of signature was lawful. | Court: Upheld violation — failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure nonlawyer conduct compatible with obligations. |
| Did Geesing violate MLRPC 8.4 (misconduct / prejudicial to administration of justice)? | Robo‑signing undermined public confidence and court efficacy; caused media coverage, litigation, lost clients, and operational burdens on courts. | Geesing emphasized lack of dishonest motive and that he reviewed documents for accuracy. | Court: Upheld violations of 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) — conduct prejudicial to administration of justice and violations of Rules; 8.4(c) not found here. |
| Appropriate sanction? | Commission sought indefinite suspension with earliest reinstatement after six months (later adjusted). | Geesing sought reprimand; argued mitigation (no prior record, remediation, cooperation, remorse). | Court: Suspension for 90 days (consistent with precedent Dore given large‑scale robo‑signing and mitigating factors). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dore, 433 Md. 685, 73 A.3d 161 (Md. 2013) (suspension for widespread robo‑signing; 90‑day sanction with mitigating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. O’Leary, 433 Md. 2, 69 A.3d 1121 (Md. 2013) (aggravating factor discussion on multiple offenses/pattern of misconduct)
- Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. 2d 754 (D. Md. 2012) (district court dismissal of claims arising from robo‑signing practice)
- Lembach v. Bierman, [citation="528 F. App'x 297"] (4th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of robo‑signing related claims)