Attorney Grievance Commission v. McDowell
439 Md. 26
| Md. | 2014Background
- At Shapiro Brown & Alt LLP, attorney Matthew J. McDowell signed ("robo-signed") ~900 trustee’s deeds and affidavits on behalf of partner William Savage; paralegal-notaries later placed jurats falsely stating the documents were signed in their presence.
- Managing partner John S. Burson was unaware of the robo-signing and false notarizations until 2011; prior to that he made no firm-wide preventive measures despite earlier show-cause orders involving other attorneys.
- After learning of the misconduct Burson took remedial steps: ensured title problems were avoided, required written promises from staff not to sign for others, and obtained written assurances from firm notaries.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission charged Burson with violations of MLRPC 5.1 and 5.3 and both respondents with violations of MLRPC 1.1 and 8.4; Bar Counsel filed a petition and a hearing was held.
- The hearing judge largely absolved McDowell of some charges and found Burson violated 5.1(a) and 5.3(a) (failure to implement measures); on review the Court of Appeals (1) accepted a joint petition by McDowell admitting violation of MLRPC 8.4(d), (2) reversed some conclusions and (3) imposed reprimands on both lawyers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDowell violated MLRPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) | Commission: signing documents for another and false jurats prejudiced administration and public confidence | McDowell: acted at supervisor Savage’s direction and believed practice lawful; no tangible harm | Court: McDowell conceded violation of 8.4(d); misconduct reprimanded (negative impact on public perception) |
| Whether Burson violated MLRPC 5.1(a) and 5.3(a) (duties of partners re: supervision and nonlawyer assistants) | Commission: Burson failed to implement reasonable measures despite prior show-cause incidents and the scale of signing | Burson: was unaware, did not order/ratify misconduct, and later took remedial steps | Court: Clear and convincing evidence Burson violated 5.1(a) and 5.3(a); reprimand imposed due to negligent managerial failure |
| Whether Burson is vicariously liable under MLRPC 5.1(c)/5.3(c) for McDowell’s or paralegals’ misconduct | Commission: partner should be responsible where consequences could be mitigated | Burson: did not order or ratify conduct and acted reasonably once informed | Held: Burson not vicariously liable—he neither ordered/ratified the conduct and took reasonable remedial action once aware |
| Appropriate sanction | Commission sought 30-day suspension for Burson; reprimand for McDowell (later joint petition) | Burson sought reprimand; McDowell initially sought dismissal but then joined joint reprimand petition | Court: Reprimand for both—considering duties violated, negligent mental state (Burson), mitigating factors (no prior discipline, remorse, cooperation), and limited/no tangible client harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Geesing, 436 Md. 56 (2013) (robo-signing can violate MLRPC 8.4(d) where it harms public perception)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dore, 433 Md. 685 (2013) (robo-signing and related failures can justify suspension where intentional and harmful)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kimmel, 405 Md. 647 (2008) (partners must implement supervisory mechanisms; failure can warrant severe sanctions when clients are harmed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Paul, 423 Md. 268 (2011) (reprimand appropriate for prejudicial conduct where lawyer believed act was authorized and clients were not harmed)
- Goldberg v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 292 Md. 650 (1982) (failure to supervise can warrant suspension even where direct client loss is unclear)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Frost, 437 Md. 245 (2014) (sanctions aim to protect public confidence and deter misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McDonald, 437 Md. 1 (2014) (Court considers ABA Standards in sanction analysis)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reno, 436 Md. 504 (2014) (appellate review standard in discipline matters)