Attorney Grievance Commission v. Nusbaum, 436 Md. 609

Harvey M. Nusbaum, admitted 1963, was indicted and pled guilty in federal court to violating 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Sherman Act) for participating in collusive bidding at Maryland tax-lien auctions.
Federal court entered judgment (guilty plea); Nusbaum was sentenced to 12 months and one day imprisonment, two years supervised release, $800,000 fine, and 100 hours community service; he served prison time and was released on supervised probation.
Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action under Maryland Rule 16-751 based on the federal conviction and sought immediate suspension under Rule 16-771(c).
A circuit judge (Judge Nagle) held an evidentiary hearing, made findings of fact (no mitigating evidence offered), and concluded Nusbaum violated MRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d).
On de novo review the Court of Appeals adopted the judge’s legal conclusions and, applying precedent that intentional dishonest conduct ordinarily warrants disbarment absent compelling mitigation, ordered Nusbaum disbarred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal Sherman Act conviction is a "serious crime" under Rule 16-701(k)	Conviction qualifies as a serious crime warranting disciplinary action	(No substantive mitigation or contrary legal claim was presented)	Yes — conviction is a serious crime; conclusive for disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16-771(g)
Whether the conviction establishes violations of MRPC 8.4(b), (c), (d)	Illegal, deceptive bid-rigging reflects dishonesty, untrustworthiness and is prejudicial to administration of justice	No evidence rebutting or mitigating misconduct was offered	Yes — the Court agreed the conduct violated MRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d)
Whether the circuit court findings are conclusive in the disciplinary proceeding	Final judgment of conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt; additional evidence can be introduced but does not negate conviction	Nusbaum offered no evidence to counter or mitigate the conviction's effect	The Court treated the conviction and fact findings as established and reviewed legal conclusions de novo; adopted the conclusions
Appropriate sanction for intentional dishonest criminal conduct	Disbarment is appropriate absent compelling extenuating circumstances	Nusbaum presented no mitigating or extenuating circumstances to argue for a lesser sanction	Disbarment ordered; consistent with prior Maryland precedent endorsing disbarment for intentional dishonesty

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507, 979 A.2d 146 (2009) (conviction for conspiracy to commit immigration fraud resulted in disbarment)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Wingerter, 400 Md. 214, 929 A.2d 47 (2007) (disbarment imposed after federal conviction for misprision of a felony)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (2001) (statement that intentional dishonest conduct ordinarily warrants disbarment)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565, 876 A.2d 642 (2005) (discussing sanctions for attorney misconduct)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633, 790 A.2d 621 (2002) (sanctions analysis for attorney misconduct)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 396 Md. 203, 913 A.2d 41 (2006) (explaining rationale that intentional dishonest conduct is closely tied to character and typically merits disbarment)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bakas, 323 Md. 395, 593 A.2d 1087 (1991) (comparison to misappropriation; dishonest conduct warrants severe sanction)