Attorney Grievance Commission v. Joseph
31 A.3d 137
Md.2011Background
- Respondent Joel D. Joseph, Maryland-licensed attorney, admitted 1981, practiced solo and ran Made in the U.S.A. Foundation, with a national pro hac vice record in 25 jurisdictions.
- Petitioner Attorney Grievance Commission accused Joseph of misrepresenting his residency in California pro hac vice filings and related communications.
- In 2007–2008, Joseph lived and worked primarily in California, leasing Santa Monica office space and maintaining a California address for mail and filings, while claiming Maryland residency in pleadings and applications.
- California Bar officials sought a residence address; Bethesdq/Maryland addresses were furnished by Brewer and Moss, with misstatements about residence and office locations in Wartell, K-2, Panera, and Whole Foods filings.
- Evidence showed Joseph's California relocation included obtaining a California driver’s license, opening a California bank account, and filing tax returns in California; he had no Maryland residence post-2007.
- Hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of violations of MRPC 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d); disbarment was imposed by the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent violated candor obligations in pro hac vice filings | Joseph falsely claimed Maryland residency and misrepresented his address. | Respondent contended the residency issue was a misunderstanding of terms like residence vs domicile. | Yes; violations established; disbarment affirmed. |
| Whether respondent's misrepresentations breached MRPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) | Misrepresentations to California courts and to Bar officials show dishonesty. | Respondent claimed intent to reside temporarily and disputes over residency definitions. | Yes; violations proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice under MRPC 8.4(d) | Dishonest filings undermine public confidence and court integrity. | Respondent argued conduct not intended to deceive and emphasized temporary residence. | Yes; conduct prejudicial to justice established. |
| Appropriate sanction for professional misconduct | Disbarment warranted for intentional dishonesty and repeated misrepresentations. | Case should be dismissed or sanctions less severe. | Disbarment imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kapoor, 391 Md. 505 (2006) (candor required; misrepresentation violates 3.3(a))
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (2010) (reiterates duty to correct prior misrepresentations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Clark, 363 Md. 169 (2001) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; public confidence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Theriault, 390 Md. 202 (2005) (standard for appellate review of findings in disciplinary matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Pak, 400 Md. 567 (2007) (interpretation of pro hac vice and candor to tribunals)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harrington, 367 Md. 36 (2001) (de novo review of conclusions of law; standard of review in disciplining attorneys)
- Boer v. Univ. Specialty Hosp., 421 Md. 529 (2011) (distinguishes residence from domicile; relevance to statutory definitions)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 245 Cal. App. 2d 40 (1966) (defines domicile vs. residence in California context)
- Paciulan v. George, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (1999) (California pro hac vice residency interpreted in ordinary sense)
- Smith v. Smith, 45 Cal. 2d 235 (1955) (residence and domicile concepts in California law)