Attorney Grievance Commission v. Worsham
105 A.3d 515
Md.2014Background
- Michael C. Worsham, a Maryland attorney (admitted 1998), concentrated in consumer/private enforcement actions (TCPA); from 2005–2012 he stopped filing federal and State income tax returns and did not pay income taxes.
- Evidence showed deliberate efforts to conceal income: refusal to provide a W-9, attempt to have a $71,456.61 fee paid into his attorney trust account, returning a check that would trigger withholding/reporting, and communications aimed at avoiding IRS discovery.
- The Tax Court found Worsham failed to report ~ $200,000 for 2006, found fraud by clear and convincing evidence, and described many of his positions as frivolous; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
- The Hearing Judge found by clear and convincing evidence violations of multiple MLRPC provisions (notably 3.1 and 8.4(a)–(d)) based principally on the tax misconduct and found his testimony not credible.
- The Court of Appeals sustained the findings, held the misconduct violated MLRPC 3.1 and 8.4(a)–(d), and concluded disbarment was the appropriate sanction given fraudulent intent, duration (eight years), dishonesty, lack of mitigating proof, and aggravating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Worsham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Worsham willfully fail to file/pay taxes with fraudulent intent? | Evidence (Tax Court findings, concealment attempts, refusal to cooperate) shows willful, fraudulent intent to hide income. | Claims subjective belief federal income tax invalid; contends actions were to obtain legal rulings and later to resolve liabilities. | Willfulness and fraudulent intent upheld (Cheek distinction noted). Court accepts hearing judge and Tax Court findings. |
| Did Worsham violate MLRPC 3.1 by raising frivolous tax arguments? | His constitutional/tax-protester claims were meritless and previously rejected; raising them was frivolous. | Argues federal courts did not fully resolve or sanction every argument; maintains legal questions remain. | Violations of MLRPC 3.1 sustained; federal courts characterized arguments as meritless/frivolous. |
| Did Worsham’s attempts to route fees into trust account and avoid reporting violate MLRPC 8.4? | Using trust account to conceal personal fees and refusing required tax reporting are deceitful and prejudicial to administration of justice. | Characterizes some actions as non-directive (e.g., letter to bank) or based on mistaken beliefs; disputes characterization of intent. | Violations of MLRPC 8.4(a),(b),(c),(d) sustained for willful failure to file/pay and deceptive trust-account conduct. |
| What sanction is appropriate? | Bar Counsel: disbarment given fraudulent, dishonest, prolonged misconduct and aggravating factors. | Worsham: reprimand or suspension; asserted partial post-detection payments should mitigate. | Disbarment affirmed: fraudulent intent, prolonged pattern, dishonesty, lack of credible mitigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kobin, 432 Md. 565 (disbarment may be based on subset of violations that alone warrant disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Atkinson, 357 Md. 646 (willful multi‑year failure to file returns violates MLRPC and reflects dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tayback, 378 Md. 578 (suspension vs. disbarment depends on fraudulent intent; multi‑year failure prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hoang, 433 Md. 600 (disbarment appropriate where extended failure to file and participation in fraudulent tax scheme)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keiner, 421 Md. 492 (conduct involving dishonesty/fraud risks disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Casalino, 335 Md. 446 (disbarment for willful tax evasion/conviction)
- Maryland State Bar Ass’n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543 (willful cheating of government by tax evasion supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Walman, 280 Md. 453 (lawyer’s willful failure to file taxes undermines public confidence in the profession)