Attorney Grievance Commission v. Paul
31 A.3d 512
| Md. | 2011Background
- AGC Maryland filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action charging Paul with MRPC 3.3, 8.4 and Md. Code § 8-606 based on forged alteration of court documents.
- Hearing before Circuit Court Judge Philip T. Caroom; findings were by clear and convincing evidence.
- Facts: Shanley drafted a stipulation of dismissal; Paul altered it by cutting and pasting Shanley’s signature onto his version and filed it with the court.
- Shanley claimed no consent to the altered document; the alteration caused a dispute with counsel and led to Paul’s removal from the case.
- Court found Paul deliberately altered the documents but believed he was legally justified; no prejudice to his clients was found.
- Court imposed a public reprimand; dissent would have suspended Paul 90 days; costs taxed against Paul.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Paul violate MRPC 8.4(d) by filing a forged document? | Penn Shanley alleged intentional forgery of her signature on court filings. | Paul claimed he believed he was authorized and the alteration was justified and not intended to deceive. | Yes, 8.4(d) violated; but sanction was reprimand. |
| Did Paul violate MRPC 3.3(a)(1) regarding candor to the tribunal? | Altered document presented as if approved; deception to tribunal. | Misrepresentation was not intentional deception; he believed authorization existed. | No finding of 3.3(a)(1) violation. |
| Whether Md. Code § 8-606 applies to the altered document as a public record piece? | Altered document constitutes a false entry in a public record. | The document was private until filed; statute did not attach to private documents. | No § 8-606 violation; document lacked status as a public record at time of alteration. |
| What is the appropriate sanction for Paul’s misconduct? | Suspension of 90 days appropriate due to deliberate misconduct. | Reprimand sufficient given mitigation, lack of client prejudice, and remorse. | Reprimand is the appropriate sanction. |
| Do mitigating factors justify a reprimand rather than suspension? | Mitigating factors are present but do not negate seriousness of deceit. | Remorse, rehabilitation efforts, lack of prior discipline justify reprimand. | Yes; mitigating factors support reprimand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Babbitt, 300 Md. 637 (1984) (falsification of documents supported suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hermina, 379 Md. 503 (2004) (reprimand appropriate despite serious misconduct with multiple rule violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. O'Neill, 285 Md. 52 (1979) (neophyte reprimand for misrepresentations; expresses contrition)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Stancil, 296 Md. 325 (1983) (reprimand for misrepresentations to Bar Counsel; factors for sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Floyd, 400 Md. 236 (2007) (90-day suspension for misconduct involving relationships and deception)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gordon, 413 Md. 46 (2010) (reciprocal discipline; comparison of deceit severity and sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Maxwell, 307 Md. 600 (1986) (suspension for misrepresentation in deed signing scenario)
- Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586 (2006) (forgery of signature on MVA form; affirmed serious sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Jaseb, 364 Md. 464 (2001) (reprimand for misconduct with lack of prejudice to client)
- Protokowicz, 329 Md. 252 (1993) (discusses standards for sanctions and deterrence)