Attorney Grievance Commission v. Smith
109 A.3d 1184
Md.2015Background
- Respondent Bruce Michael Smith, an Assistant State’s Attorney assigned to the Harford County Child Advocacy Center, was responsible for notifying a 10-year-old victim and her foster mother of rights and proceedings under Maryland victim notification laws.
- Smith conceded he was deficient in notifying the victim and her foster mother, contributing to the victim's lack of awareness of the prosecution, sentencing, and probation conditions.
- Head, a case involving sexual abuse of a minor, was postponed due to a claimed unavailability of a key witness (the victim’s guardian) based on a note Smith presented to the circuit court.
- Head pleaded guilty to a fourth-degree offense on January 4, 2010, with Head’s sentencing proceeding not attended by the victim or her guardian and without a victim impact statement.
- During discovery years later, the State found missing or absent files: no victim notification form, no certification of notice to the court, no subpoenas for the victim or guardian, and no contact with the victim or guardian between September 2009 and January 2010.
- The State’s Attorney confronted Smith; he resigned immediately, prompting Bar Counsel to file a disciplinary petition alleging violations of MLRPC 1.3, 3.3, and 8.4(a)-(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Smith violate MLRPC 1.3 (Diligence)? | Smith failed to exercise reasonable diligence in notifying the victim and guardian and in verifying the postponement information. | Smith testified he relied on a note and had a heavy workload; no deliberate deceit. | Yes; Smith violated MLRPC 1.3. |
| Did Smith’s conduct prejudicially affect the administration of justice under MLRPC 8.4(d)? | Repeated failure to communicate violated 8.4(d) due to prolonged delays and rights denial to victims. | Hearing judge held it was a singular incident lacking intentionality. | Yes; Smith violated MLRPC 8.4(d). |
| Did Smith knowingly provide false information to the court in seeking a postponement, violating MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4(c)? | Smith lied about the guardian’s unavailability to obtain a postponement. | Smith credibly testified he relied on a note and lacked independent recollection; no clear and convincing evidence of intent. | No; the court declined to find violations of 3.3 and 8.4(c). |
| Did Smith violate MLRPC 8.4(a) by aiding or abetting violations through his conduct in the Head case? | By violating 1.3 and 8.4(d), Smith’s conduct also violated 8.4(a). | No separate intent needed beyond other violations; 8.4(a) follows from 1.3 and 8.4(d). | Yes; Smith violated MLRPC 8.4(a). |
| What sanction is appropriate given the violations? | Indefinite suspension with right to reinstate as urged by the Commission. | Smith did not propose a sanction; argued for reprimand in light of mitigating factors. | Indefinite suspension with right to reapply no sooner than 60 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court 1935) (prosecutor as minister of justice; duty to avoid foul methods)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rand, 429 Md. 674 (Md. 2012) ( Rand standard on intent for 8.4 violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Litman, 440 Md. 205 (Md. 2014) (discretion in sanctions for misrepresentation; six-month reinstatement referenced)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1 (Md. 1999) (credibility determinations in attorney discipline cases)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. London, 427 Md. 328 (Md. 2012) (misrepresentation; credibility in adjudicating 8.4(c) violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (Md. 2007) (dishonesty and 8.4(c) concerns with misrepresentation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Khandpur, 421 Md. 1 (Md. 2011) (sanctions framework; aggravating/mitigating factors)