Attorney Grievance Commission v. Seltzer
34 A.3d 498
| Md. | 2011Background
- Seltzer was admitted to the Maryland bar in 2001; the Attorney Grievance Commission filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action on Dec 9, 2010, incorporating Jenkins and Piper-Brandon complaints.
- Bar Counsel alleged Rule 8.4(a)-(d) misconduct for deceit and misrepresentations in a Baltimore real estate transaction and Rule 8.1(b) for failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel.
- Judge Bowman found Seltzer held multiple intertwined entities (Village Green, Death Star, Advanced Realty, First Class) and engaged in schemes to deposit funds and misappropriate money during Allied/Biddison Lane negotiations.
- Seltzer issued fraudulent documents (Oppenheimer letter, Chase statements, fake Chase email) to induce Jenkins and the Seller to enter contracts and never disclosed his roles.
- Seltzer repeatedly evaded Bar Counsel by failing to respond to subpoenas, requests for documents, and a Statement Under Oath; he eventually was disbarred by per curiam order dated Oct 7, 2011.
- The Court affirmed disbarment as the sanction, citing egregious pattern of deceit and misappropriation and prejudice to the administration of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seltzer violated Rules 8.4(a)-(d) and 8.1(b) as to Jenkins | Seltzer engaged in deceit and misrepresentations to induce a contract | Seltzer allegedly disputed elements or lacked intent to defraud | Yes; violations established by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Seltzer violated Rules 8.4(b)-(d) through fraudulent documents and misrepresentations | Fraudulent documents and misrepresentations show dishonesty and deceit | Docs forged; not authorized by him; insufficient proof of intent | Yes; supported by findings of deceit and misappropriation |
| Whether Seltzer violated Rule 8.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel | Repeated non-response to letters and subpoenas violated 8.1(b) | Health issues or other excuses insufficient | Yes; multiple failures to respond supported disciplinary violation |
| Whether Seltzer's conduct toward Advanced Realty constitutesRule 8.4 violations and prejudices administration of justice | Misappropriation and unauthorized withdrawals harmed clients | No entitlement to funds; separate issue from bar rule | Yes; misappropriation and deceit prejudicial to justice |
| Whether disbarment was appropriate sanction | Disbarment warranted due to pattern of misconduct | Mitigation or lesser sanction possible | Yes; disbarment affirmed as proper sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Stern, 419 Md. 525 (2011) (court-wide authority over attorney discipline; independent review of record)
- Attorney Grievance v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (2011) (acceptance of hearing judge findings as prima facie correct; standard of review)
- Attorney Grievance v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (2010) (repeated failure to respond supports violation of 8.1(b))