40 A.3d 34
Md.2012Background
- Ms. Smith was charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission with violating multiple MLRPC provisions, including 5.5(a), 8.4(a), (c), and (d).
- Judge Caroom held she did not practice before a court in an unadmitted jurisdiction but violated 8.4(a), (c), and (d).
- Ms. Smith failed to appear at the hearing before this Court, prompting a per curiam disbarment order on February 2, 2012.
- Smith, admitted to Maryland bar in 1997 and DC federal practice, worked at Drinker Biddle & Reath in DC since 2008 but never admitted to the DC Bar.
- DC rules permit limited practice for out-of-state attorneys for 360 days with disclosures; she sought admission without examination in January 2009 and faced inquiries in October 2009.
- Smith admitted altering documents submitted to the DC Admissions Committee in February 2010, fabricating disclosures that she was admitted only in Maryland and limited to federal practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith violated 8.4(a)–(d) through fabrication and misrepresentations | Smith fabricated and altered documents to mislead the Admissions Committee | (not explicitly stated as a separate argument in the excerpt) | Smith violated 8.4(a), (c), and (d) |
| Whether Smith violated 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice) | The Commission argued underlying conduct constituted unauthorized practice | Judge Caroom found no unauthorized practice | No violation of 5.5(a) (dispositive not found; court did not address further due to other findings) |
| Appropriate sanction for fabricated bar-application evidence | Disbarment is warranted given fabrication and misrepresentation | Mitigating factors present but not compelling | Disbarment awarded; costs imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370 (Md. 2011) (false notarizations and attestations on public records)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Joseph, 422 Md. 670 (Md. 2011) (false representations as to residency for pro hac vice admission)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Byrd, 408 Md. 449 (Md. 2009) (false and misleading business reports filed with court)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Parsons, 404 Md. 175 (Md. 2008) (false statement on federal pro hac vice admission)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Payer, 425 Md. 78 (Md. 2012) (disbarment for fabricating evidence absent compelling extenuating circumstances)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gordon, 413 Md. 46 (Md. 2010) (aggravating factors often guide sanction decisions)
- Harris v. Maryland, 403 Md. 142 (Md. 2008) (ABA Standards aggravating factors guidance used in sanctions)