124 A.3d 210
Md.2015Background
- Matthew R. Young, admitted to Maryland Bar in 2008, formed Carefree Construction Services, LLC, and from 2009–2013 contracted to perform home-improvement work for 32 homeowners and received $152,426.
- Young performed the work without a Maryland home-improvement contractor license in violation of BR § 8-601; he claimed he had a license or was working under his licensed brother, Brian Young.
- Complaints from homeowners (McCarty; Woods) prompted MHIC and Bar Counsel investigations; Young provided false license information (including his brother’s license number) and misrepresentations to investigators and Bar Counsel.
- Young filed frivolous suits against complainants to collect payment; the District Court ruled for the homeowners and the hearing judge found those suits frivolous and in bad faith.
- The hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence violations of MLRPC 8.1(a) and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d), six aggravating factors, and no mitigation; this Court independently reviewed and imposed disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Attorney Grievance Comm’n (Petitioner) | Young (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Young violated MLRPC 8.1(a) by making false statements to Bar Counsel in a disciplinary matter | Young knowingly misrepresented he was licensed (or working under his brother’s license) to Bar Counsel, causing dismissal of an initial complaint | Young denied wrongdoing; asserted he had permission to use his brother’s license or otherwise was licensed | Court held Young violated MLRPC 8.1(a) (intentional misrepresentations to Bar Counsel) |
| Whether Young violated MLRPC 8.4(b) by committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on fitness as a lawyer | Acting repeatedly as an unlicensed home-improvement contractor violated BR § 8-601 and reflects adversely on fitness | Young argued some work was commercial or used brother’s license; denied he acted unlawfully | Court held Young violated MLRPC 8.4(b) (unlicensed contracting constituted criminal acts reflecting on fitness) |
| Whether Young violated MLRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation) | Misrepresentations to MHIC and Bar Counsel and filing frivolous suits were dishonest and deceitful | Young disputed allegations; claimed authorization or lawful basis for conduct | Court held Young violated MLRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty in investigations and litigation conduct) |
| Whether Young violated MLRPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) and whether MLRPC 8.4(a) is implicated | Threats to complainant, misuse of attorney status, and frivolous filings undermine public confidence and court resources | Young contended misconduct was outside practice of law or justified | Court held Young violated MLRPC 8.4(d); found violations of substantive rules also implicate 8.4(a) |
| Appropriate sanction for intentional dishonesty and pattern of misconduct | Disbarment is warranted given intentional dishonesty, multiple offenses, lack of mitigation, and aggravating factors | Young sought a lesser sanction or mitigation (generally denied) | Court ordered disbarment and assessment of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nussbaum, 401 Md. 612 (misrepresentations to disciplinary authority support MLRPC 8.1(a) violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Worsham, 441 Md. 105 (MLRPC 8.4(b) may be found without criminal conviction when facts establish criminal offense)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136 (non‑legal dishonest conduct can justify discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Blum, 373 Md. 275 (misconduct that violates MLRPC 8.1(a) may also violate 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cocco, 442 Md. 1 (misrepresentations, threats, and intimidation by an attorney support disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goodman, 381 Md. 480 (intentional dishonesty ordinarily warrants disbarment absent compelling extenuation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lazerow, 320 Md. 507 (disbarment appropriate for intentionally dishonest conduct in nonlaw business activities)